Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
June 11, 2012
Ci o0 Executive Committee Meeting Agenda w-��11d4= 1.1 —' Monday, June 11 , 2012 PICKERING Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles (I) Delegations a) Paula Jesty, Deloitte & Touche LLP Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CST 18-12 2011 Year End Audit b) Representatives from Centennial College Re: Continuing Education Opportunities c) Meaghan Eastwood Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Re: Urban Forest Study Report CS 20-12 (II) Matters for Consideration Pages 1. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CST 18-12 1-75 2011 Year End Audit Recommendation 1. That Report CST 18-12 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the Year-end Communication Report as submitted by Deloitte & Touche LLP be received for information; and, 3. That the 2011 draft Audited Consolidated Financial Statements for the City of Pickering be approved. 2. Director, Community Services, Report CS 17-12 76-88 Tender No. T-10-2012 -Tender for East Shore Community Centre Parking Lot Improvements Recommendation Accessible For information related to accessibility requirements please contact • PICKEItN,G Linda Roberts Phone: 905.420.4660 extension 2928 TTY: 905.420.1739 Email: Irobertsepickerina.ca City oy4 Executive Committee Meeting -4;1 , Agenda Monday, June 11 , 2012 PI KERIN Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles 1. That Report CS 17-12 of the Director, Community Services regarding Tender No. T-10-2012 for the East Shore Community Centre Parking Lot Improvements be received; 2. That the proposed works under Tender No. T-10-2012 is to include East Shore Community Centre-west side, parking lot reconstruction and drainage improvements; 3. That Tender No. T-10-2012 submitted by Wyndale Paving Company Limited in the total tendered amount of$217,700.83 (HST included) and a net cost of $196,046.34 be accepted; 4. That the total gross project cost of$244,821 (HST included) and a net project cost of$220,469 (net of HST rebate) including the total tendered amount and other associated costs be approved; 5. That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to finance the project as follows: a) the sum of$200,000 as provided for in the 2012 Capital Budget be increased to $220,000 and be financed through the issuance of debentures by the Regional Municipality of Durham for a period not to exceed five years, at a rate to be determined; b) the balance sum of$469 be funded from property taxes; c) that the annual repayment charges in the amount of approximately $47,350 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing in 2013, continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid, and any financing cost to be paid out of the Current Budget; 6. That the draft by-law attached to this report be enacted; and 7. Further that the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. 3. Director, Community Services, Report CS 20-12 89-108 Urban Forest Study Recommendation Cit./ co Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, June 11 , 2012 PI SOMME Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles 1. That Report CS 20-12 of the Director, Community Services regarding the Urban Forest Study be received; 2. That the City of Pickering Urban Forest Study—Technical Report, be received by Council for information; 3. That City staff be authorized to commence the preparation of a request for proposals, and investigate costs related to consulting services for the preparation of a city-wide Urban Forest Management Plan; 4. That staff be directed to include a request for funding in the 2013 Current Budget for the purpose of retaining a consultant to assist in the preparation of a city-wide Urban Forest Management Plan; and 5. Further that a copy of this report be forwarded to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for their information. 4. Director, Community Services, Report CS 21-12 109-134 Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Environmental Assessment Recommendation 1. That Report CS 21-12 of the Director, Community Services, regarding the Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Environmental Assessment be received; 2. That the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be authorized to assume a leadership role in the partnership with the City of Pickering to undertake the project; 3. That the proposal from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for services related to the Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Environmental Assessment, in a gross amount of$532,334 and a net project cost of $479,383 including net HST, disbursements, and a 15% contingency be approved; 4. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to fund the above mentioned project through a transfer from: a) the Development Charges Reserve Fund — Stormwater in the amount of $57,526; Cluj' oy0 _ Executive Committee Meeting Agenda I-I'=' Monday, June 11 , 2012 ��L�1.3�1 P CKERING Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles b) the DC-City's Share Reserve in the amount of$421,857; 5. That a report be presented to Council upon completion of the Class Environmental Assessment; and, 6. Further that appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to enter into any agreements to give effect hereto. 5. Director, Community Services, Report CS 23-12 135-140 No Parking By-law, Sandstone Manor -Amendment to By-law 6604/05 Recommendation 1. That Report CS 23-12 of the Director, Community Services regarding the installation of No Parking Zones on Sandstone Manor, and a proposed amendment to the municipal traffic and parking by-law 6604/05 be received; and 2. Further that the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "2" to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of parking on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address parking concerns on Sandstone Manor. 6. Director, Community Services, Report CS 24-12 141-146 Tender No. T-17-2012 -Tender for School Crossing Guard Program Recommendation 1. That Report CS 24-12 of the Director, Community Services regarding Tender T-17-2012 for the administration, supply and service of the School Crossing Guard Program be received; 2. That Tender No. T-17-2012 submitted by Staffing Services in the total tendered amount of$1,356,000 (HST included) with a net project cost of $1,221,120 be approved for the three year period from September 2012 to June 2015, subject to the annual review and extension to the contract by the Manager, Supply & Services; Cat/ 00 Executive Committee Meeting Agenda yaw P., =1_ I Monday, June 11 , 2012 PICKERING Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles 3. Further that the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take necessary action to give effect hereto. 7. Director, Community Services, Report CS 27-12 147-154 Supply & Delivery of one 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck -Quotation No. Q-13-2012 Recommendation 1. That Report CS 27-12 of the Director, Community Services regarding the supply and delivery of one 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck be received; 2. That Quotation No. Q-13-2012, as submitted by Scarborough Truck Centre Inc. for the supply and delivery of one 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck in the amount of$187,758 (HST extra) be accepted; 3. That the total gross purchase cost of$213,297 and a net purchase cost of $192,081 be approved; 4. That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to finance the project as follows as provided for in the 2012 Capital Budget; a) the sum of$190,000 be financed by the issue of debentures through the Regional Municipality of Durham for a period not exceeding five years, at a rate to be determined; b) that the balance of$2,081 plus issuing costs be funded from property taxes; c) that the financing and repayment charges in the amount of approximately $41,000 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing in 2013 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid; d) that the Treasurer be authorized to make any changes, adjustments, and revisions to amounts, terms, conditions or take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; and 5. That the draft by-law attached to this report be enacted; and 6. Further that the appropriate City of Pickering Officials be authorized to take necessary action to give effect. City a0 Executive Committee Meeting Agenda - Monday, June 11 , 2012 PICKERING Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles 8. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CST 17-12 155-158 Development Charges —Annual Indexing Recommendation 1. That Report CST 17-12 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That effective July 1, 2012 as provided for in Section 16 of By-law 6978/09, the Development Charges referred to in Sections 6 and 11 of that By-law be increased by 3.3 percent; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be given authority to give effect thereto. 9. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CST 19-12 159-176 2012/2013 Property and Liability Insurance Renewal Recommendation 1. That Report CST 19-12 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the City of Pickering renew its property, liability and other insurance policies through the Frank Cowan Company for the period July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 in the amount of$790,690.92 (includes applicable taxes) and inclusive on terms and conditions acceptable to the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer; 3. That L.V. Walker & Associates be confirmed as the City's Adjuster of Record for property, liability and other insurance and related matters; 4. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, as part of the Risk Management Program, be authorized to continue the Deductible Program, including entering into the attached Claims Handling Agreement, through the Insurance Adjuster L.V. Walker &Associates, and the Frank Cowan Company and further, that the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer or the Manager, Finance & Taxation be authorized to settle any claims including any adjusting and legal fees where it is in the City's interest to do so; C 00 Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, June 11, 2012 PICKERING Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles 5. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to purchase additional insurance, make changes to deductibles and existing coverages, and alter terms and conditions as becomes desirable or necessary in order to limit potential liability exposure and to protect the assets of the City and it's elected officials and staff; and, 6. That the appropriate officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. (Ill) Other Business (IV) Adjournment • Ciro, 4 s Report To rw Executive Committee °IJiL� Report CST 18-12 Date: June 11, 2012 2011 Year-End Audit Page 2 02 (under legislation), increased by almost $4 million to $44.3 million primarily due to the receipt of development charges and Federal Gas Tax funds. Total discretionary, at Council's direction, Reserves and Reserve Funds increased by $4 million to $33.6 million almost all of which has been set aside for specific purposes by Council. Long term liabilities increased by $2.5 million with the issuance of debt through the Region of Durham for previously approved capital works. Overall the City's financial position is healthy and continues to strengthen which is a positive reflection of the role of Council and senior staff in managing the financial affairs of the Corporation. A strong balance sheet provides assurances to the City's lenders bankers, ratepayers and businesses that the City is able to meet its financial commitments. Discussion: The audit of the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31 , 2011 has been completed. The auditor's Year-end Communication Report is included as Attachment 1. This report, prepared by Deloitte & Touche LLP, summarizes the results of the December 31, 2011 audit and comments on significant matters regarding the audit or other matters they may believe to be of interest to Council. Appendix A of the attachment presents a draft unmodified Independent Auditor's Report which will be issued once the Financial Statements are approved by Council. On an annual basis, the auditor is required to communicate all relationships between the City and the firm that may impact on their independence to the City. The independence letter included in Appendix B confirms that Deloitte & Touche LLP is independent with respect to the City. It is in draft form as it will be dated once the Consolidated Financial Statements are approved by Council. Appendix C illustrates the draft representation letter which is provided by the City to the auditors. This letter indicates that the Financial Statements are management's responsibility and that management has provided and disclosed all necessary information to ensure the Financial Statements are not materially misstated. This letter will be signed by the Chief Administrative Officer and the Treasurer upon approval of the financial statements by Council. During the course of the audit, the auditors may find misstatements that may or may not be adjusted due to materiality. For 2011 there were a few items found. During the 2011 audit an invoice for approximately $310K for capital works completed prior to year end was received after the books were closed. As the amount was material this invoice • was included in payables and expenses for 2011. Two other adjustments were not made as they would not have a material affect on the financial statements. Further explanation of these adjusted and unadjusted amounts is provided on page 4 of the auditor's Year-end Communication Report. Report CST 18-12 Date: June 11, 2012 2011 Year-End Audit Page 3 ' Q ;; The scope of the audit does not include an in-depth evaluation of all systems or internal controls; however, the auditors may report on matters that come to their attention during the course of their review. No matters came to their attention to report in a management letter and as such one has not been issued. The draft Audited Consolidated Financial Statements are included as Attachment 2. These statements are the responsibility of management and have been prepared by City accounting staff under the direction of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer. Deloitte & Touche LLP are responsible to express an opinion on these Consolidated Financial Statements based on its audit. An unmodified audit report has been provided. The Consolidated Financial Statements includes the activities of the City of Pickering Public Library Board. The City's investment in Veridian Corporation is accounted for on a modified equity basis, which means the City includes its share of Veridian's income or loss in the Consolidated Financial Statements. This is the second year of reporting on the full accrual basis of accounting as prescribed by the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB), which includes reporting tangible capital assets. Tangible capital assets, such as land, building, infrastructure and equipment are now capitalized (recorded) at cost on the Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheet) and amortized (depreciated except for land), over their estimated useful lives in current operating expenses. Under this method, the Statement of Financial Position now includes tangible capital assets under the non-financial asset section and shows Accumulated Surplus. Statement of Financial Position Financial assets are those assets which could provide resources to discharge existing liabilities or finance future operations. Net financial assets increased over the prior year which was due to an increase in financial assets of approximately $8.1 million offset by an increase in liabilities of approximately $4.9 million. The increase in financial assets is due to an increase in Cash & Cash Equivalents ($6.1 M) and Taxes Receivable ($1.2M). Cash & cash equivalents is comprised of the bank account balances and short-term paper (less then 90 days). Timing of receipt and use of funds, especially when funds are received in the last quarter of the year, will cause these balances to change year over year. The following factors contributed to the increase at the end of the year: debenture proceeds of just over $4.7 million received September 30th, Federal Gas Tax installment of $1.3 million received in mid November, supplementary tax billing of $1.6 million gross due in late November and December and an increase in development charges collected of approximately $4.3 million. The increase in taxes receivable of 7.6% over prior year is consistent with the increase in billing over prior year. Report CST 18-12 Date: June 11, 2012 2011 Year-End Audit Page 4 04 The increase in liabilities primarily resulted from an increase in Deferred Revenue ($3.9M) and Long-term Liabilities($2.5M) offset by a decrease in Accounts Payable ($1 .1M). Debentures were issued in the year causing a net increase in long-term liabilities after principal repayments were made. The deferred revenue balance consists primarily of the Obligatory Reserve Fund amounts such as Development Charges, Parkland Contributions, Federal Gas Tax and Third Party/Developer's Contributions. As mentioned above, the Federal Gas Tax installment received in November and the overall increase in Development Charges collected has contributed to the increase in deferred revenue. Lastly, the decrease of approximately $1.1 million in Accounts Payable balance at year end results from timing of receipt of invoices and processing of payments. Non-financial assets includes tangible capital assets which is the net book value (cost less accumulated amortization) of the City owned assets including land, buildings, roads, bridges & sidewalks infrastructure, storm sewer infrastructure, furniture and fixtures, vehicles and equipment. Non-financial assets are not available to discharge existing liabilities and are held for use in the provision of services. They have useful lives extending beyond the current year and are not intended for sale in the ordinary course of operations. Statement of Operations Revenue reported includes both operating and capital. Therefore, variances between budget to actual may arise due to timing of approval in the capital budget and actual receipt of funds/recognition of revenue. This is clearly illustrated with the Other contributions and donations revenue item. The budget amount includes a $3 million contribution from York Region for roads and parks related projects. Funds will be received upon completion of these related projects but nothing has occurred to date. Therefore, the actual revenue is much lower than the budget. This also applies to the Development charges earned line item. A number of these projects have not commenced or been completed and therefore the revenue is not recognized until the expenses are incurred. The capital budget expenditures do not show on the Statement of Operations as capital expenditures. For those expenditures that meet the definition of a tangible capital asset (TCA), the cost is reported on the Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheet). Only a portion of the asset's cost is included as an amortization expense each year over the life of the asset in the operating expenses reported on the Statement of Operations. The amortization expense is included in operating expenses for the asset's respective functional category. For example, amortization on a fire truck is included under the Protection to Persons and Property category. Capital budget expenditures that do not meet the TCA definition are included as operating expenses under the appropriate functional category. Report CST 18-12 Date: June 11 , 2012 2011 Year-End Audit Page 5 05 The budget figures reported also need to reflect the change in reporting for capital budget expenditures. Note 17 of the City's consolidated financial statements reflects the changes made to the 2011 Council approved budget to put it on a basis consistent with the full accrual basis of accounting which incorporates tangible capital asset reporting. Of the 2011 budgeted capital expenditures, a total of $140K were not deemed tangible capital assets and were included in the operating expenses. Actual expenses are comparable with budget except for the General Government and Planning functions. General government came in under budget mainly due to the actual expenditures being less then the estimates provided for emergency operational needs and multi year contract settlements. Planning's variance arose due to a number of consulting projects identified in the budget related to Seaton not commencing in 2011. Accumulated Surplus The components that make up the Accumulated Surplus are disclosed in Note 11 of the City's consolidated financial statements and are summarized below. It must be emphasized that these amounts are not surplus funds in the traditional sense. The accumulated surplus balance essentially represents the difference between assets and liabilities of the City. What primarily contributes to this balance are the tangible capital assets of approximately $187.9 million and the City's equity in Veridian Corporation of approximately $70.6 million. The accumulated surplus is comprised of the following: Operating fund $ 125,092 Capital fund 10,062,439 Reserves and reserve funds 33,585,030 Equity in Veridian Corporation 70,585,144 Tangible capital assets 187,940,852 Post employment benefits liability (3,039,600) WSIB benefit liabilities (826,859) Internal loans (806,848) Net long-term liabilities (19,131,687) $278,493,563 Attachments: 1. Auditor's Year-end Communication Report 2. 2011 Draft Audited Consolidated Financial Statements Report CST 18-12 Date: June 11, 2012 2011 Year-End Audit Page 6 • 06 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Kristine Senior, CA Gillis A. Paterson, CMA Manager, Accounting Services Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of o Pickering Cit Counci /f 28 20/2 Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. tl Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT#_f TO REPORT# C ig-I z 07 Deloitte. The Corporation of the City of Pickering Year-end communication For the year ended December 31, 2011 IOP A -- For presentation to the Executive Committee June 11,2012 08 D e 1 o itte• Deloitte&Touche LLP 5140 Yonge Street Suite 1700 Toronto ON M2N 6L7 Canada Tel:416-601-6150 Fax:416-601-6610 www.deloitte.ca May 18,2012 Private and confidential The Members of the Executive Committee The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering ON L1V 6K7 Dear Executive Committee Members: Report on audited annual financial statements As agreed in our engagement letter dated October 27,2011,we have performed an audit of the consolidated financial statements of the Corporation of the City of Pickering(the"City")as at,and for the year ended,December 31,2011,in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards ("GAAS")and expect to issue our audit report thereon on the date that the financial statements are approved. This report summarizes our findings from the audit to date. Our audit has been conducted in accordance with the Audit Plan that was presented to the Executive Committee at the meeting on November 14,2011. Use of this report This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Executive Committee,management and others within the City and is not intended to,and should not,be used by anyone other than these specified parties.Accordingly,we disclaim any responsibility to any other party who may rely on it. We would like to express our appreciation for the cooperation we received from the officers and employees of the City with whom we worked to discharge our responsibilities. We look forward to discussing this report with you and to answering any questions which you may have. Yours truly, * i eLc.P Chartered Accountants Licensed Public Accountants Membre de/Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited 09 Table of contents Executive summary 1 Audit scope and findings 3 Audit risks 5 Internal control matters 6 Significant accounting practices 7 Appendicies Appendix 1 -Draft version of our Independent Auditor's Report Appendix 2- Independence letter Appendix 3- Draft management representations letter Appendix 4-Summary of communication requirements ©Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities. 2011 Year-end communication—The Corporation of the City of Pickering i 1 Executive summary This report summarizes the main findings arising from our audit to date. • A dit scope matters Audit results In accordance with Canadian GAAS,our audit was designed to enable us to express an opinion on the fairness of the presentation of the City's consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards("GAAP")issued by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. Our audit scope included the following(together, referred to as the"financial statements"): -Consolidated financial statements for the City of Pickering; -City of Pickering Public Library Board;and -City of Pickering Trust Funds. The December 31,2011 audit was conducted in accordance with our audit plan,which was communicated to the Executive Committee on November 14,2011.We confirm that there have been no significant amendments to the audit scope and approach communicated in the audit plan. Status of our audit We expect to be in a position to render our audit opinion on the financial statements of the City following approval of the financial statements by Council and the completion of the following outstanding procedures: • Receipt of legal letters; • Completion of our subsequent events procedures; • Receipt of signed management representations letter;and • Completion of the Engagement Quality Control review. Audit risks In accordance with our audit plan,our procedures focused on the following areas of audit risk: • Revenue/deferred amounts; • Accounting estimates;and • Tangible capital assets We have summarized the results of our audit procedures for each of these risk areas on page 5 of this report. Use of the work of As planned external experts assisted in the audit to the extent we considered necessary: experts Actuarial experts Assisted with the assessment of the valuation and disclosure of employee future benefits. Internal control We did not identify any significant deficiencies in internal controls over financial reporting during the year ended December 31,2011. Internal control matters are described in further detail on page 6 of this report. Fraud and illegal Based on the procedures we performed as required by CAS 240, The Auditor's Responsibilities acts Relating to Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements,we are not aware of any illegal acts or fraudulent events with respect to the City during the year which in our judgement should be discussed with the Committee. Based on the results of our audit procedures,we are not aware of any circumstances that indicate any intent to misstate the financial statements. ©Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities. 2011 Year-end communication—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 11 IAudit scope matters Significant We believe management's selection of accounting policies to be appropriate under Canadian accounting GAAP.Our views on the significant quantitative and qualitative aspects of these accounting policies policies are presented on page 7 of this report. The City's significant accounting policies are set forth in Note 1 to the December 31,2011 financial statements. Management Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and judgment and are based on management's current judgments.These judgments are normally based on accounting knowledge and experience about past and current events,assumptions about future events and estimates interpretations of the financial reporting standards. During the year ended December 31,2011,management advised us that there were no significant changes in the types of accounting estimates or in judgments relating to such estimates. Our views on the significant quantitative and qualitative aspects of the judgments and estimates made by the City's management are presented on page 7 of this report. Audit adjustments In accordance with Canadian GAAS,we request that all misstatements be corrected. and uncorrected We aggregate all uncorrected misstatements greater than 5%of materiality,and those that are misstatements quantitatively insignificant but qualitatively significant. Adjusted and uncorrected misstatements are summarized in our audit findings on page 4. Adjusted and In accordance with Canadian GAAS,we request that all disclosure deficiencies be corrected. unadjusted During the course of the audit,we did not identify any significant adjusted or unadjusted disclosure disclosure deficiencies. deficiencies Post-balance Management is responsible for assessing subsequent events up to the date of the release of the sheet events financial statements. At the date of finalizing this report,we are not aware of any significant post-balance sheet events. Representations A draft version of the representations letter to be signed by management is included in Appendix 3. letter Independence We have developed appropriate safeguards and procedures to mitigate threats to our independence or to reduce them to an acceptable level. Our annual independence letter is included in Appendix 2. Conclusion No restrictions have been placed on the scope of our audit. In performing the audit,we were given full and complete access to the accounting records,supporting documentation and other information requested. We intend to issue an unmodified Independent Auditor's Report on the financial statements of the City for the year ended December 31,2011 once the outstanding items referred to above are satisfactorily completed and the financial statements are approved. A draft version of our Independent Auditor's Report is included in Appendix 1. ©Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities. 2011 Year-end communication—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 2 12 Audit scope and findings We have prepared the following comments to assist you in fulfilling your oversight responsibilities of the financial reporting and disclosure process for which management of the City is responsible. In accordance with Canadian GAAS,our audit was designed to enable us to express an opinion on the fairness of the presentation of the City's annual financial statements prepared in accordance with Canadian GAAP. Changes to the audit plan The December 31,2011 audit was conducted in accordance with our audit plan,which was presented to the Executive Committee on November 14, 2011. We confirm that there have been no significant amendments to the audit scope and approach communicated in the audit plan. Use of the work of experts As planned,we used the work of the City's actuary for the valuation and disclosure of Employee Future Benefits.We reviewed the actuarial assumptions and input data used for the valuation to assess their reasonableness, and the results were satisfactory. Disagreements with management In the course of our audit,we did not have any disagreements with management about matters that individually or in the aggregate could be significant to the financial statements. • Related party transactions The City's reporting entity is disclosed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements. Inter-entity transactions and balances are eliminated on consolidation with the exception of Veridian Corporation. Information related to Veridian Corporation balances and transactions can be found in Notes 4, 5 and 14. As part of our audit,we did not identify any unusual related party transactions which are not in the normal course of business. Legal and regulatory compliance Management is responsible for ensuring that the City's operations are conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The responsibility for preventing and detecting non-compliance rests with management. The auditor is not,and cannot be held, responsible for preventing non-compliance with laws and regulations. Our procedures did not identify any areas of material non-compliance with laws and regulations by the City. ©Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities. 2011 Year-end communication—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 3 Post-balance sheet events Management is responsible for assessing subsequent events up to the date of the release of the financial statements.At the date of finalizing this report, we are not aware of any significant post-balance sheet events. Adjusted and unadjusted misstatements During the course of our audit,the following audit adjustment was identified and has been reflected in the consolidated financial statements: (1) DR Tangible capital assets $310,988 CR Accounts payable $ 310,988 To record invoice from Region of Durham for costs completed prior to year end relating to sidewalks and multi-use path on Altona Road. During the course of the audit, some misstatements were identified and not adjusted. The impact on the financial statements had the adjustments been recorded is as follows: Unadjusted Results if Current Unadjusted factual likely misstatements balance misstatements misstatements are adjusted (1) (2) (1) Financial assets 169,399,984 8,848 104,082 169,512,914 Liabilities 79,694,574 57,977 79,752,551 Net financial assets 89,705,410 8,848 (57,977) 104,082 89,760,363 Non-financial assets 188,788,153 188,788,153 Accumulated surplus 278,493,563 8,848 (57,977) 104,082 278,548,516 Revenues 77,598,047 8,848 104,082 77,710,977 Expenses 74,001,716 57,977 74,059,693 Annual surplus 3,596,331 8,848 (57,977) 104,082 3,651,284 (1) Invalid credits within the programs receivable balance relating to program cancellations of$8,848. If this error was extrapolated over the entire population of programs receivable, a likely error of $104,082 will result. (2) OMERS-related expenses, erroneously recorded to accounts payable. ©Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities. 2011 Year-end communication—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 4 14 Audit risks Our audit plan identified certain risk areas that we discussed with the Committee when reviewing the audit plan. The results of our audit work on these areas are set out below: Areas CO audit OM CCEV audit response COB conclusion Revenue/Deferred amounts • Substantive testing to determine if restricted Satisfactory contributions(i.e.development charges,federal Risk: Revenue recognition of grants gas tax,etc.)and government transfers have and contributions been recognized in the appropriate period Accounting estimates • Obtain documentation on management's controls Satisfactory over the development of accounting estimates for Risk:Estimates require management any significant management estimates and judgments(i.e.allowance for assess risk significant known property tax • Focused review of calculations and support appeals,contingent liabilities, actuarially determined liabilities,etc.) Discussions with management • Analytical review of related accounts • Assess outcome of retrospective review of estimates from prior years Tangible capital assets • Review assumptions used in determining Satisfactory completeness,valuation,recording and cut-off of Risk:Appropriate accounting and 2011 additions disclosure • Review of calculations of amortization ©Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities. 2011 Year-end communication—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 5 � 5 Internal control matters We obtained an understanding of internal control relevant to the audits, however not all controls are relevant to every audit.We evaluated the design of controls relevant to the audits and determined whether they have been implemented.We are not, however, required to determine whether all relevant controls are operating effectively. Canadian GAAS require us to report to the Committee any significant deficiencies that have come to our attention.We did not identify any significant deficiencies in internal control during the audit. ©Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities. 2011 Year-end communication—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 6 16 Significant accounting practices Significant accounting policies are those that are most important to the portrayal of the City's financial position and financial performance. In the course of our audit of the financial statements,we considered the qualitative aspects of the financial reporting process, including items that have a significant impact on the relevance, reliability, comparability and understandability of the information included in the financial statements. Significant accounting policies During the year ended December 31,2011,there were no significant changes in previously adopted accounting policies or their application. In our judgment,the significant accounting practices,selected and applied by management are, in all material respects,acceptable under GAAP and are appropriate to the particular circumstances of the City. Management judgment and accounting estimates In our judgment, the significant accounting estimates made by management are, in all material respects, free of possible management bias and of material misstatement.The disclosure in the financial statements around estimation uncertainty is in accordance with Canadian GAAP and is appropriate to the particular circumstances of the City. Significant estimates include: Post-employment benefits liability- $3,218,000 (2010 -$2,882,900) WSIB benefits liability- $826,859(2010-$1,672,898) Allowance for doubtful taxes receivable- $367,000 (2010-$367,000) Allowance for doubtful accounts- $621,604(2010-$305,000) Assessment appeals- $882,145 (2010 -$344,705) Payroll related accruals- $1,769,654 (2010 -$1,307,532) ©Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities. 2011 Year-end communication—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 7 17 Appendix 1 - Draft version of our Independent Auditor 's Report Our independent auditor's report on the consolidated financial statements is expected to be in the form noted on the following pages. However, the final form may need to be adjusted to reflect the final results of our audit. • ©Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities. 2011 Year-end communication—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 18 Deloitte&Touche LLP 5140 Yonge Street Suite 1700 Toronto ON M2N 6L7 Canada Tel:416-601-6150 Fax:416-601-6151 www.deloitte.ca Independent Auditor's Report To the Members of Council,Inhabitants and Ratepayers of the Corporation of the City of Pickering We have audited the accompanying consolidated financial statements of the Corporation of the City of Pickering,which comprise the consolidated statement of financial position as at December 31,2011,and the consolidated statements of operations,change in net financial assets,and cash flows for the year then ended,and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information. Management's Responsibility for the Consolidated Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these consolidated financial statements in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards,and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of consolidated financial statements that are free from material misstatement,whether due to fraud or error. Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards.Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements.The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments,the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the consolidated financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances,but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control.An audit also included evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. 19 Opinion In our opinion,the consolidated financial statements present fairly,in all material respects,the financial position of the Corporation of the City of Pickering as at December 31,2011 and the results of its operations,changes in its net financial assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards. Chartered Accountants Licensed Public Accountants June 11,2012 Page 2 20 Appendix 2 - Independence letter ©Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities. 2011 Year-end communication—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 21 Deloitte. Deloitte&Touche LLP 5140 Yonge Street Suite 1700 Toronto ON M2N 6L7 Canada Tel:416-601-6150 Fax:416-601-6610 www.deloitte.ca May 18,2012 Private and confidential The Members of the Executive Committee The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering ON L 1 V 6K7 Dear Executive Committee Members: We have been engaged to audit the consolidated financial statements of the Corporation of the City of Pickering(the"City") for the year ended December 31,2011. You have requested that we communicate in writing with you regarding our compliance with relevant ethical requirements regarding independence as well as all relationships and other matters between the City, our Firm and network firms that,in our professional judgment,may reasonably be thought to bear on our independence. In determining which relationships to report,we have considered relevant rules and related interpretations prescribed by the appropriate provincial institute/ordre and applicable legislation,covering such matters as: (a) holding a financial interest,either directly or indirectly,in a client; (b) holding a position,either directly or indirectly,that gives the right or responsibility to exert significant influence over the financial or accounting policies of a client; (c) personal or business relationships of immediate family,close relatives,partners or retired partners,either directly or indirectly,with a client; (d) economic dependence on a client;and (e) provision of services in addition to the audit engagement. We confirm to you that the engagement team and others in the firm as appropriate,the firm and,when applicable,network firms have complied with relevant ethical requirements regarding independence. We have prepared the following comments to facilitate our discussion with you regarding independence matters arising since June 20,2011,the date of our last letter. 22 The Corporation of the City of Pickering May 18,2012 Page 2 We are not aware of any relationships between the City and our Firm,including any network firms that,in our professional judgment,may reasonably be thought to bear on independence,that have occurred from June 20,2011 to May 18,2012. We hereby confirm that we are independent with respect to the City within the meaning of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario as of May 18,2012. This report is intended solely for the use of the Executive Committee,Council,Management,and others within the City and should not be used for any other purposes. Yours truly, Chartered Accountants Licensed Public Accountants 23 Appendix 3 - Draft management representations letter ©Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities. 2011 Year-end communication—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 24 CLIENT LETTERHEAD June 11,2012 Private and confidential Deloitte&Touche LLP 5140 Yonge Street, Suite 1700 Toronto ON M2N 6L7 Dear Ms Jesty: Subject: Consolidated Financial statements for the year ended December 31,2011 This representation letter is provided in connection with the audit by Deloitte&Touche LLP("Deloitte" or"you")of the consolidated financial statements of The Corporation of the City of Pickering(the"City" or"we"or"us") for the year ended December 31,2011 (the"Financial Statements")for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to whether the Financial Statements present fairly,in all material respects,the financial position,results of operations,and cash flows of the City in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles("GAAP")established by the Public Sector Accounting Board. Certain representations in this letter are described as being limited to matters that are material.An item is considered material,regardless of its monetary value,if it is probable that its omission from or misstatement in the Financial Statements would influence the decision of a reasonable person relying on the Financial Statements. We confirm that: Financial statements 1. We have fulfilled our responsibilities as set out in the terms of the engagement letter between the City and Deloitte dated October 27,2011 for the preparation of the Financial Statements in accordance with GAAP. In particular,the Financial Statements are fairly presented,in all material respects,and present the financial position of the City as at December 31,2011 and the results of its operations and cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with GAAP. 2. In preparing the Financial Statements in accordance with GAAP,management makes judgments and assumptions about the future and uses estimates.The completeness and adequacy of the disclosures related to estimates are in accordance with GAAP.The City has appropriately disclosed in the Financial Statements the nature of measurement uncertainties that are material,including all estimates where it is reasonably possible that the estimate will change in the near term and the effect of the change could be material to the Financial Statements. Significant assumptions used in making estimates are reasonable and appropriately reflect management's intent and ability to carry out specific courses of action on behalf of the entity. The measurement methods,including the related assumptions and models,used in determining the estimates were appropriate,reasonable and consistently applied in accordance with GAAP and appropriately reflect management's intent and ability to carry out specific courses of action on behalf of the entity. There are no changes in management's method of determining significant estimates in the current year. 25 Deloitte&Touche LLP June 11,2012 Page 2 Financial statements(continued) 3. With regard to the fair value measurements and disclosures of certain assets,liabilities,and specific components of equity,we believe that: a. The measurement methods,including the related assumptions and models,used in determining fair value were appropriate,reasonable and consistently applied in accordance with GAAP. b. The completeness and adequacy of the disclosures related to fair values are in accordance with GAAP. c. No events have occurred subsequent to December 31,2011 that require adjustment to the fair value measurements and disclosures included in the Financial Statements. d. They appropriately reflect management's intent and ability to carry out specific courses of action on behalf of the City when relevant to the use of fair value measurements or disclosures. 4. All related party relationships and transactions(including associated amounts receivable and payable) have been appropriately accounted for and disclosed in the Financial Statements in accordance with the requirements of GAAP. 5. We have completed our review of events after December 31,2011 and up to the date when the Financial Statements were authorized for issue,June 20,2011. All events subsequent to the date of the Financial Statements and for which GAAP requires adjustment or disclosure have been adjusted or disclosed.Accounting estimates and disclosures included in the financial statements that are impacted by subsequent events have been appropriately adjusted. 6. The Financial Statements are free of material errors and omissions. 7. Management has completed its assessment of the ability of the City to continue as a going concern and in making its assessment did not identify any material uncertainties related to events or conditions that may cast significant doubt upon the City's ability to continue as a going concern,which would require disclosure in the Financial Statements. In assessing whether the going concern assumption is appropriate,management took into account all available information about the future,which is at least,but is not limited to,twelve months from the balance sheet date,their plans for future action and the feasibility of these plans. 8. We have disclosed to you all known,actual or possible litigation and claims,whether or not they have been discussed with our lawyers,whose effects should be considered when preparing the Financial Statements. As appropriate,these items have been disclosed and accounted for in the Financial Statements in accordance with GAAP. Information provided 9. We have provided you with: a. Access to all information of which we are aware that is relevant to the preparation of the Financial Statements, such as records,documentation and other matters; b. Additional information that you have requested from us for the purpose of the audit; and, c. Unrestricted access to persons within the entity from whom you determined it necessary to obtain audit evidence. 10. All transactions have been recorded in the accounting records and are reflected in the Financial Statements. 26 Deloitte&Touche LLP June 11,2012 Page 3 Information provided(continued) 11. We acknowledge our responsibility for the design,implementation and maintenance of internal control to prevent and detect fraud. 12. We have disclosed to you the results of our assessment of the risk that the Financial Statements may be materially misstated as a result of fraud. 13. We have disclosed to you all information in relation to fraud or suspected fraud that we are aware of and that affects the entity and involves: a. Management; b. Employees who have significant roles in internal control; or c. Others where the fraud could have a material effect on the Financial Statements. 14. We have disclosed to you all information in relation to allegations of fraud,or suspected fraud, affecting the entity's Financial Statements and all knowledge of concerns or allegations of potential errors in the selection of accounting policies or the recording of transactions affecting the City that have been communicated by employees,former employees,analysts,regulators,or others,whether written or oral. 15. We have disclosed to you all known instances of non-compliance or suspected non-compliance with laws and regulations whose effects should be considered when preparing the Financial Statements. 16. We have disclosed to you all communications from: a. taxation authorities concerning assessments or reassessments that could have a material effect on the Financial Statements;and b. regulatory agencies concerning noncompliance with or potential deficiencies in,financial reporting requirements.We are unaware of any known or probable instances of non-compliance with the requirements of regulatory or governmental authorities,including their financial reporting requirements. 17. We have disclosed to you any change in the City's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the current year that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the City's internal control over financial reporting. 18. We have disclosed to you the identity of the entity's related parties and all the related party relationships and transactions of which we are aware,including guarantees,non-monetary transactions,transactions for no consideration and participation in a defined benefit plan that shares risks between group entities. Work of specialists 19. We agree with the work of specialists in evaluating the valuation of post employment benefits liability and WSIB benefits liability and have adequately considered the qualifications of the specialist in determining amounts and disclosures used in the Financial Statements and underlying accounting records.We did not give any,nor cause any,instructions to be given to specialists with respect to values or amounts derived in an attempt to bias their work,and we are not aware of any matters that have impacted the independence or objectivity of the specialists. Compliance with contractual agreements 20. We have disclosed to you,and the City has complied with all aspects of contractual agreements that could have a material effect on the Financial Statements in the event of non-compliance,including all covenants,conditions or other requirements of all outstanding debt. Title to assets 21. The City has satisfactory title to and control over all assets,and there are no liens or encumbrances on such assets.We have disclosed to you and in the Financial Statements all assets that have been pledged as collateral. 27 Independence matters For purposes of paragraph 22, "Deloitte"shall mean Deloitte&Touche LLP and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited,its member firms and the affiliates of Deloitte&Touche LLP,Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms. 22. Prior to the City having any substantive employment conversations with a former or current Deloitte engagement team member the City has held discussions with Deloitte and obtained approval from the Executive Committee of the Council. Liabilities and contingencies 23. We have disclosed to you all liabilities,provisions,contingent liabilities and contingent assets, including those associated with guarantees,whether written or oral,and they are appropriately reflected in the Financial Statements. Loans and receivables 24. The City is responsible for determining and maintaining the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful notes,loans,and accounts receivable,as well as estimates used to determine such amounts. Management believes the allowances are adequate to absorb currently estimated bad debts in the account balances. Employee future benefits 25. Employee future benefit costs,assets,and obligations have been properly recorded and adequately disclosed in the Financial Statements including those arising under defined benefit plans as well as termination arrangements.We believe that the actuarial assumptions and methods used to measure defined benefit plan assets,liabilities and costs for financial accounting purposes are appropriate in the circumstances. Environmental liabilities/contingencies 26. We have considered the effect of environmental matters on the City and have disclosed to you all liabilities,provisions or contingencies arising from environmental matters. All liabilities,provisions, contingencies and commitments arising from environmental matters,and the effect of environmental matters on the carrying values of the relevant assets are recognized,measured and disclosed,as appropriate,in the Financial Statements. Yours truly, The Corporation of the City of Pickering Name Name Title Title 28 Appendix 4 - Summary of communication requirements In our audit plan,we committed to communicate certain items to the Executive Committee on a regular basis,or as specified events occur. These items are summarized below. • • Comm nication Comments 1. Our responsibilities under Canadian GAAS. See engagement letter dated October 27,2011. 2. Our audit strategy and scope. Audit plan communicated on November 14,2011. 3. Fraud or possible fraud identified through the audit process. None noted. 4. Illegal or possible illegal acts. None noted. 5. Significant transactions inconsistent with the normal course of business, None noted. including related party transactions. 6. Procedures performed on other public documents with which we are None. associated and the results thereof. 7. Management judgment and accounting estimates. Please refer to page 7 of this report. 8. Financial statement adjustments. Please refer to page 4 of this report. 9. Uncorrected misstatements and disclosure deficiencies determined by Please refer to page 4 of this report. management to be immaterial. 10. Significant accounting policies. Please refer to page 7 of this report. 11. Alternative treatments for accounting policies and practices that have Please refer to page 7 of this report. been discussed with management during the current audit period. 12. Our views about significant qualitative aspects of the City's accounting Please refer to page 7 of this report. practices,including accounting policies,accounting estimates and financial statement disclosures. 13. Disagreements with management. None. 14. Our views about significant matters that were the subject of consultation None noted. with other accountants. 15. Major issues discussed with management prior to our retention. None. 16. Significant difficulties,if any,encountered during the audit. None. 17. Significant deficiencies in internal control,if any, identified in the conduct Please refer to page 6 of this report. of the audit of the financial statements. 18. Material written communications between management and us. Engagement letter dated October 27,2011 and management representation letter—Appendix 3 of this report. 19. All relationships between the City and us that, in our professional Independence letter-Appendix 2. judgment,may reasonably be thought to bear on independence. 20. A statement that in our judgment,the engagement team and others in Independence letter-Appendix 2. our firm and,when applicable,network firms have complied with relevant ethical requirements regarding independence. 21. Non-compliance with laws and regulations that come to the auditor's None noted. attention. 22. Limitations placed on our scope. None. 23. Written representations the auditor is requesting. Draft management's representations letter—Appendix 3. ©Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities. 2011 Year-end communication—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 29 www.deloitte.ca Deloitte,one of Canada's leading professional services firms,provides audit,tax,consulting,and financial advisory services through more than 8,000 people in 56 offices.Deloitte operates in Quebec as Samson Belair/Deloitte&Touche s.e.n.c.r.l. Deloitte&Touche LLP,an Ontario Limited Liability Partnership,is the Canadian member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited,a UK private company limited by guarantee,and its network of member firms,each of which is a legally separate and independent entity.Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms. ©Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities. 3 ATTACHMENT#,c2_TO REPORT# C T S Consolidated financial statements of The Corporation of the City of Pickeri • g December 31,2011 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 31 The Corporation of the City of Pickering December 31, 2011 Table of contents Independent Auditor's Report -2 Consolidated statement of financial position 3 Consolidated statement of operations 4 Consolidated statement of change in net financial assets 5 Consolidated statement of cash flows 6 Notes to the consolidated financial statements 7-25 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 32 Deloitte&Touc,e LLP 5140 Yonge reet Suite 1700 Toronto 0 M2N 6L7 Canada Tel: ,16-601-6150 F. :416-601-6151 .deloitte.ca Independent Auditor's Report di To the Members of Council,Inhabitants and Ratepayers of the Corporation of the City of Pickering We have audited the accompanying consolidated financial st. e is .f the Co ',oration of the City of Pickering,which comprise the consolidated statement of fi••ncial •.:ition a at December 31,2011,and the consolidated statements of operations,change in net ancial asse a • cash flows for the year then ended,and a summary of significant accounting polici-: and other expla•.tory information. Management's Responsibility for the Consolida •d Financial St. ements Management is responsible for the preparation .n. fair presenta on of these consolidated financial statements in accordance with Canadian pub c se .14:, nt' g standards,and for such internal control lial as management determines is necessary to -nable th- :repar•tion of consolidated financial statements that are free from material misstatement,wh: her due to fr%d .r error. Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to express .n opinion on the - consolidated financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in ac•or.. with Ca.•dian generally accepted auditing standards.Those standards require that we c• pl''V•om••.. a equirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance abo.t whethe i,*co olidated financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves ■-rforming proce••res to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated 'nancial stateme s.The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the .:sessment of risk of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due o iT' error. making those risk assessments,the auditor considers internal control relevant to he -444, 1 ep. ation and fair presentation of the consolidated financial statements in order to desi.• audit pro -Ves hat are appropriate in the circumstances,but not for the purpose of expressing an opi'ion on the effect' eness of the entity's internal control.An audit also included evaluating the app •priateness of ac •unting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by m,. agement,as we as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe tha e audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opi 'on. FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 33 Opinion In our opinion,the consolidated financial statements present fairly,in all material respects,the f ancial position of the Corporation of the City of Pickering as at December 31,2011 and the results o is operations,changes in its net financial assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in ac'ordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards. Chartered Accountants Licensed Public Accountants June 11,2012 Page 2 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 34 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Consolidated statement of financial position as at December 31, 2011 2011 2010 $ $ Financial assets Cash and cash equivalents 47,408,45• 41,273,2. Investments(Note 3) 33,659,9 4 33,947 69 Taxes receivable 17,22; 149 16,01 ,670 Accounts receivable 3,5;1, 3 :71,991 Investment in Veridian Corporation (Note 4(b)) 4 7 4 ,119,548 Promissory notes receivable(Note 5) ,069,000 5,069,000 69,399,984 161,286,580 Liabilities Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 12,104,48 13,173,379 Other current liabilities 85, .9 94,481 Deferred revenue(Note 6) 44,327,687 40,429,995 Long-term liabilities (Note 9) 19,1.1,687 16,582,742 Post-employment benefit liability(Note 8(a)) 3 18,600 2,882,900 WSIB benefit liabilities(Note 8(b)) 826,859 1,672,898 79,694,574 74,836,395 Net financial assets 89,705,410 86,450,185 Non-financial assets Tangible capital assets(Note 10) 187,940,852 187,669,237 Prepaid expenses 618,043 386,274 Inventory 229,258 391,536 188,788,153 188,447,047 Accumulated surplus(Note 11) 278,493,563 274,897,232 Approved by Council Page 3 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY The Corporation of the City of Pickering , 5 Consolidated statement of operations year ended December 31, 2011 2011 2010 Budget Actual Actual (Unaudited) (Note 17) $ Revenues Residential and farm taxation 34,007,734 34 69 7 33 .40,378 Commercial and industrial taxation 9,281,452 :,4•,. '5 :,779,976 Taxation from other governments 7,832,507 8,236,4 7,427,687 User charges 10,672,473 10,658,960 7,661,881 Government grants and fees 1,808,593 2,487,283 4,024,406 Other contributions and donations 4,934,909 834,092 980,367 Development charges and developer contributions earned 2,153,8 0 864 .31 966,251 Contributed tangible capital assets 6: ,938 3,031,356 Investment income 1 5,1 i1 ,52,893 298,499 Penalties and interests on taxes 70,0'o ,678,684 2,499,536 Fines 855,500 919,576 886,995 Interest on promissory notes 1,426,850 1,426,852 1,588,823 Equity share of Veridian Corporation earnings(Note 4(c)) - 3,838,176 3,477,285 Other 163,50' 509,215 261,549 Gain on disposal of tangible capital assets - 373,707 94,823 D 75,68 ,388 77,598,047 75,319,812 Expenses(Note 19) Current General government 15,367,212 13,580,197 13,644,762 Protection to persons and prope, 20,090,546 19,208,938 19,016,456 Transportation services 12,276,475 11,293,153 9,558,606 Environmental services 2,355,699 3,486,332 3,363,579 Social and family services 603,115 574,734 475,524 Recreational and cultur. se 22,721,027 23,272,214 22,763,222 Planning and develop, ent 3,777,674 2,586,148 2,791,188 77,191,748 74,001,716 71,613,337 Annual (deficit)surplu: (1,509,360) 3,596,331 3,706,475 Accumulated surplu:, beginning of ye. 274,897,232 274,897,232 271,190,757 Accumulated su •lus,end of year 273,387,872 278,493,563 274,897,232 O Page 4 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 3 6 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Consolidated statement of change in net financial assets year ended December 31, 2011 2011 2010 Budget Actual Actual (Unaudited) (Note 17) Annual(deficit)surplus (1,509,360) 3,59:,331 3,70:,475 Acquisition of tangible capital assets (24,397,825) (9,' '9, '1) (11,x.1,430) Amortization of tangible capital assets 9,684,209 •,57: 0 :,601,811 Gain on disposal of tangible capital assets - (3 ,7' • (94,823) Proceeds on disposal of tangible capital assets - 531,023 127,839 (16,222,976) 3,324,716 2,279,872 Acquisition of inventory of supplies (1,211,3•..) (1,046,647) Use of inventory of supplies - 1,373,:21 921,617 Acquisition of prepaid expenses (61 ,183) (386,273) Use of prepaid expenses :2,414 398,023 (69,491) (113,280) Change in net financial assets (16,222,976) 3,255,225 2,166,592 Net financial assets, beginning of year 76,604,829 86,450,185 84,283,593 Net financial assets,end of year 60,381,853 89,705,410 86,450,185 Page 5 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY • The Corporation of the City of Pickering 3 7 Consolidated statement of cash flows year ended December 31, 2011 2011 2010 $ $ Operating transactions Annual surplus 3,596,3 3,706,4 Non cash items Amortization of tangible capital assets 9,571,560 9,61 ,811 Gain on disposal of tangible capital assets • 340 7) 94,823) Equity share of Veridian Corporation •,8 , v6) :,477,285) Contributed tangible capital assets recorded in revenue (681,93 N (3,031,356) Change in non-cash operating items: (Increase)decrease in taxes receivable (1,222,379) 60,315 Decrease in accounts receivable 310,610 33,330 (Decrease)increase in accounts payable and accrued liabilities (1,068,8' ) 1,378,626 Decrease in other current liabilities (9 )22) (27,685) Increase in deferred revenue k 3,8' ,692 2,515,416 Increase in post-employment benefit liability •35,700 167,800 (Decrease)increase in WSIB benefit liabilities (846,039) 304,700 Decrease(increase)in inventory 162,278 (125,030) (Increase)decrease in prepaid expenses (231,769) 11,750 9,601,044 11,024,044 Capital transactions Acquisition of tangible capital assets (9,317,553) (8,030,074) Proceeds on disposal of tangible capital ass- s 531,023 127,839 (8,786,530) (7,902,235) Investing transactions Decrease(increase)in investments 287,195 (2,074,671) Dividends received from Veridian orporation 2,484,600 2,140,382 2,771,795 65,711 Financing transactions Proceeds from debenture iss : 4,707,000 4,046,000 Principal repayment of••bentures (2,158,055) (1,683,228) 2,548,945 2,362,772 Increase in cash an• cash equivalents 6,135,254 5,550,292 Cash and cash e• ivalents, beginni • of year 41,273,202 35,722,910 Cash and cas equivalents,end •if year 47,408,456 41,273,202 Cash and ,s -qui . ents •nsists of Cash 23,906,305 7,337,107 Cash -quivalents 23,502,151 33,936,095 47,408,456 41,273,202 Page 6 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 38 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Notes to the consolidated financial statements December 31, 2011 1. Significant accounting policies The consolidated financial statements("the financial statements")of The Corporati 6 n of the City of Pickering (the"City")are the representations of management prepared in accord nce with accounti'g standards established by the Public Sector Accounting oard ("PSA ")of the -nadian Institute • Chartered Accountants.Significant accounting policies adopted by the City a - a. follows: (a) Reporting entity (i) Consolidated statements The consolidated financial statements reflect the assets,li..ilities, revenues . d expenses of the reporting entity.The reporting entity is comprised of t,e activities of all •mmittees of Council and the City of Pickering Public Library Board ich is controlled ,y the City. All material inter-fund transactions and balances ar>eliminated on co .olidation. (ii) Investment in Veridian Corporation The City's investment in Veridian Corporation ' accou for o a modified equity basis, consistent with generally accepted accounting principles a e •mmended by PSAB for investments in government business ente •rises. Under the • odified equity basis,Veridian Corporation's accounting policies are no adjusted to confo' to those of the City and inter- organizational transactions and balan -s are not elimina -d.The City recognizes its equity interest in the annual earnings or lo . of Veridian Corp ration in its consolidated statement of operations with a corresponding i rease or decreas: in its investment asset account. Dividends that the City may rec-' e •m Veridian orporation and other capital transactions are reflected as adjustments i he in�tl , as:et account. (iii) Operations of School Boar.. and the Ri..'on • Durham The taxation, other reve es,expenditures assets and liabilities with respect to the operations of the school boards and the Region of D,rham(the"Region")are not reflected in these consolidated financi. statements. (iv) Trust funds Trust funds an,, the ted operations administered by the City are not consolidated, but are reported sep.rat-qc .n artier us Funds Statement of Financial Activities and Statement of Financial P•sition. (b) Basis of acc•unting (i) Accr al basis of accou mg R: enue and expenses are reported on the accrual basis of accounting.The accrual basis of accounting recogn' es revenues as they are earned and measurable;expenses are recognized as •- are incur'ed and measurable as a result of the receipt of goods and services and the -. •• •f a lee al obligation to pay. (ii) Ca • - • c.sh equivalents s) Cash an• cash equivalents consist of cash on hand, demand deposits and short-term, highly liquid i estments that are readily convertible to known amounts of cash. Cash equivalents have . short-term maturity of three months or less from the date of acquisition. (iii) In estments ong-term investments are recorded at cost and any loss in value which is considered other than temporary is recorded as appropriate.Any premium or discount at purchase of an investment is amortized over the life of the investment. Page 7 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY The Corporation of the City of Pickering 3 Notes to the consolidated financial statements December 31, 2011 1. Significant accounting policies(continued) (b) Basis of accounting(continued) (iv) Tangible capital assets("TCA") Tangible capital assets are recorded at cost less accumulated amo za• n. Cost inclu'les all costs directly related to acquisition or construction of the tangible '.p' sset inclu•'ng transportation costs, installation costs,design and engineering f•es, ga s an. site preparation costs.Amortization is recorded on a straight-line •.sis over the ti 'ated life of the tangible capital asset commencing once the asset is availa• e for use as folio . Buildings 15 to 45 yea Machinery and equipment 2 to 25 ye. s Vehicles 5 to 15 years Infrastructure- Roads 10 to 5% y ars Infrastructure-Storm sewers 25 to 0 ea s Infrastructure-Sidewalks 20 • 40 Information technology hardware 4 o 8 year Infrastructure- Parks 0 to 40 years Library collection materials 4 to 7 years Furniture and fixtures 10 to 50 year One-half of the annual amortization is charged in the y:-r of acquisition and in the year of disposal.Assets under constructio- are not amortize. until the asset is available for productive use. Land is not amortized. Tangible capital assets receiv-d as c•`'t�^'*•n are recorded at their fair value at the date contributed,and that amou is also rec. •ed •,s revenue. (v) Accounting for Property ax Capping Provi ons resulting from the Ontario Fair Assessment System The net impact in pr.perty taxes as a r.suit of the application of the capping provisions does not affect the Con:olidated Stateme of Operations as the full amounts of the property taxes were levied. Ho ,ev: he capping .djustments are reported on the consolidated Statement of Financial Pos' on 4 -ceivabl- payable from/to the Region. (vi) Deferred r- enue Deferre• revenues repres- t user charges and fees which have been collected but for which the re .ted services hav- et to be performed.These amounts will be recognized as revenues in th fiscal year the s- ices are performed. In addition,any contributions received with e -rnal restrictions . e deferred until the related expenditures are made. (vii) -ost employment •enefits .fie e�p - ent v. e of the cost of providing employees with future benefit programs is r 7 ni:d a: employees earn these entitlements through service.Actuarial gains and losses are ..• i ••d over the average remaining service period ("ARSP"). The actuary determined ARSP to •e 14 years. (viii) Invento ry Inv-ntory is valued at the lower of cost and replacement cost. Cost is determined on a w•ighted-average basis. Page 8 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 40 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Notes to the consolidated financial statements December 31, 2011 1. Significant accounting policies(continued) (b) Basis of accounting(continued) (ix) Government transfers Government transfers are recognized in the financial statements in e riod in whic he events giving rise to the transfer occur,eligibility criteria are met, .. d onable es• ates of the amount can be made. (x) Intangible assets Intangible assets are not recognized as assets in the fina ial statements. (xi) Use of estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformi , with Canadian p •lic sector accounting standards requires management to make estimat: a • assumption: that affect the reported amounts in the financial statements and accom..nyd1T, �•�es.Accounts involving significant estimates include allowance for doubtful acco,nts,ce " ' accru:• liabilities,employee future benefits liabilities and estimates relating to t..ngible capita ..ss: s.Actual results could differ from these estimates. 2. Operations of school boards and the Regio of Durham Further to Note 1 (a)(iii)requisitions are mate by the Region o Durham and School Boards requiring the City to collect property taxes and pay -nts in lieu of pro.-rty taxes on their behalf.The amounts collected and remitted are summarizes ._ foil Region School board $ $ Taxation 87,215,555 41,840,203 Payments in lieu of taxes 6,072,491 422,060 93,288,046 42,262,263 3. Investments O 2011 2010 Cost Market value Cost Market value $ $ $ $ Long-ter investments 33,659,974 34,334,282 33,947,169 33,944,590 140 Lon. er 4 4 •ents .re comprised of deposit notes and bonds. Page 9 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY The Corporation of the City of Pickering Notes to the consolidated financial statements December 31, 2011 4. Investment in Veridian Corporation (a) Veridian Corporation is owned by the City of Pickering,Town of Ajax, Municip. ity of Clarington . d the City of Belleville.The City has a 41 per cent interest in Veridian Corpor. on.Veridian Corporation,as a government business enterprise, is accounted for on th- modified equity b.sis in these financial statements.Veridian Corporation serves as the electrical •is 'bution utility f.r a number of communities including the four noted above and conducts •n- elated utili service ventures through its subsidiaries. The following table provides condensed supplementary consolid. ed financial infor .tion for the corporation and its subsidiaries for the year ended December 3 . The amounts a - disclosed in thousands of dollars: 21 1 2010 (0 t 0's) (000's) Financial position Assets Current 79,455 74,269 Capital and intangibles 183,895 173,727 Other 19,296 20,633 Total assets 282,646 268,629 Liabilities Current 69,996 58,298 Long-term debt 86,649 76,928 Other 22,433 33,136 Total liabilities 179,078 168,362 Shareholders'equity Share capital 67,260 67,260 Contributed ca.'al 25 25 Retained ear ngs 36,283 32,982 Total equity 103,568 100,267 Total liabilities and equity 282,646 268,629 Financi: activities: Re enue 286,271 256,203 • her income 4,313 4,713 ET tom •'scontinued o•erations 285,142 3,919 252,843 408 Net eaat,r.�'j�•rrthe ear 9,361 8,481 Page 10 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 42 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Notes to the consolidated financial statements December 31, 2011 4. Investment in Veridian Corporation(continued) (b) City of Pickering's investment represented by: 011 110 Promissory notes receivable(Note 5) 5,0 ,0 ,069,000 Investments in Veridian Corporation Initial investment in shares of the Corporation 30,496,196 30,496,196 Accumulated earnings 27,310,11• 23,471,933 Accumulated dividends received (16,442 02) (13,957,402) Increase in value of investments 1,1 0:,821 1,108,821 Total investment 42 •73,124 41,119,548 (c) Equity in Veridian Corporation 2011 2010 $ $ Balance, beginning of year 69,231,568 67,894,665 Equity share of net earnings for the ea 3,838,176 3,477,285 Dividend received from Veridian 'orporatt. (2,484,600) (2,140,382) Balance,end of year(Note 11 70,585,144 69,231,568 (d) Contingencies and guaran -es of Veridian Co 'oration(the "Corporation') as disclosed in their financial statements are .s follows: (i) Insurance claim The Corporal 4n i:�:y'yy,�ember of e Municipal Electric Association Reciprocal Insurance Exchange(" E• "iT�f�"ii -s created on January 1, 19 7.A reciprocal insurance exchange ay be •:rye d a a group of persons formed for the purpose of exchanging reciprocaI contracts of i d- nity or inter-insurance with each other. MEARIE provides general liabili insurance to me •er electric utilities. Ins-rance premiums arged to each member utility consist of a levy per$1,000 of service r: enue subject to - credit or surcharge based on each electric utility's claims experience. nsurance limits o up to$30,000,000 per occurrence are covered by MEARIE. Page 11 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 43 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Notes to the consolidated financial statements December 31, 2011 4. Investment in Veridian Corporation(continued) (d) (continued) (ii) Other claims An action has been brought under the Class Proceedings Act: 199 T plaintiff cia . seeks $500,000,000 in restitution for amounts paid to Toronto Hydro a • t er Ontario unicipal electric utilities("LDCs")who received late payment penalties , ich oritii.,te int-rest at an effective rate in excess of 60%per year,contrary to Section .47 of the Cri a ode. By Order dated July 22,2010,the Ontario Superior Court if Justice formaliz-d a settlement pursuant to which the defendant LDCs will pay the amo-nt of$17,000,000 •lus costs and taxes in settlement of all claims. Under the settlemen ,all of the LDCs i olved in the settlement, including the Corporation, requested an .rder from the OE' allowing for the future recovery from customers of all costs related to the se lement. As per the OEB order dated February 22,2011 th os and da ages arising from the settlement of this class action shall be recov: able fr II rate..yers of the LDCs. The OEB issued its decision allowing the Corporatio o recover it a - of the settlement in the amount of$347,000. The payment to settle the Corporation: s portion of the cl=ss action suit was made on June 30,2011. The OEB order authorize, the Corporation t• recover the balance of$345,000 effective over a 12 month period o recovery from M.' 1,2011 to April 30,2012. (iii) Contractual obligation-Hydro Pne�-tw�orks Inc. HONI") The Corporation's subsidia ,Veridia�r�. -ec'ons Inc. ("VCI"), is party to a connection and cost recovery agreement th HONI reed t. the construction by HONI of a transformer station designated to me-t VCI's anticip.te• electricity load growth. Construction of the project was completed during 007 and VCI con ected to the transformer station during 2008. To the extent that t - cost of the proje' is not recoverable from future transformation connection reven es,VCI is obliged o pay a capital contribution equal to the difference between these -venues and the instruction costs allocated to VCI.The construction costs allocated to V'I f. project a - $9,975,000. The Corpo .tion ' eco .e. a liability and a corresponding intangible asset for$1,212,000 as at De.-mber 31, 4;1 ( .10- 1,212,000), based on management's best estimate of the presen value of the futur: transformation connection revenue shortfall. HONI will perform a true- • based on actual oad in 2012. Page 12 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 44 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Notes to the consolidated financial statements December 31, 2011 4. Investment in Veridian Corporation(continued) (d) (continued) (iv) Environmental liability In 2008, Environment Canada issued its final regulations governin; th. anagement .f PCBs. Costs relating to future expenditures associated with the em vj and destr.ction of PCB contaminated transformers and remediation of chemicall con .m Iant s has been estimated in the amount of$412,000,which has been recor.-d as a liabili .t ►•ecember 31, 2011. Because such expenditures are expected to be rec. erable in future r. es,the Corporation has recorded an equivalent amount as a re. latory asset. (e) Lease commitments Future minimum lease payment obligations under opera'ng leases are as .flows: (000's) 2012 157 2013 2 2014 2 2015 2 2016 2 Thereafter 70 235 5. Promissory notes receivable Promissory note receivable fr. Veridian Corporation maturing November 12,20 2 and bearing in -rest at 7.62% until April 30,20 I,then the greate of 6% or the Ontario Energy :o. ►•-emed lo • term debt rate on an annual b-.sis 1'- uu.i, 6% effective May 1,2010) 7,095,000 7,095,000 Promissory not: receivable from V-ridian Connections Inc. maturing N 6 ember 1,2039 a•d bearing interest at 7.62% u d April 30,2010,t-en 5.57%from May 1, /010 to December 1,2014 and then the Ontario Ener: B..rd deemed ling-term debt rate for each su• e e : year .-riod thereafter 17,974,000 17,974,000 25,069,000 25,069,000 nterest revenue -:rued from these notes receivable totaled$1,426,852(2010-$1,588,823).The promissory note: from Veridian Corporation are convertible into common shares at the rate of one common shar: for every$1,000 of principal amount,at the option of the City. Page 13 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY The Corporation of the City of Pickering F Notes to the consolidated financial statements December 31, 2011 6. Deferred revenue 21 1 20 $ $ Obligatory Reserve Funds Development charges .4,.il4b •4 2t,593,895 Parkland 1,818,f1; 1,757,582 Federal gas tax 4,977,097 3,526,410 Third party/Developer's Contributions Reserve Fund 2,233,978 2,185,222 43,136,48 37,063,109 Other unearned revenues 1,19 ,200 3,366,886 44 7,687 40,429,995 Continuity of deferred revenue is as follows: 2011 2010 $ $ Balance, beginning of year 40,429,995 37,914,579 Restricted funds received 7,556,772 4,667,912 General funds received 74,724 325,058 Interest earned 795,497 908,828 8,426,993 5,901,798 Earned revenue transferred t. operations 4,529,301 3,386,382 Balance, end of year 44,327,687 40,429,995 7. lnterfund loans O As a means of fun.• g various :sital :cquisitions,funds are borrowed by the Capital Fund from Development Ch. ges deferred rev; ue(obligatory reserve funds).These funds are secured by promissory not: with interest rat; ranging from 3.5%to 4.7% and various payment terms ranging from 1 year to 10 y-ars.The financin; arrangements and ultimate repayment are approved by Council through the urrent budget pr. ess.Although these notes have payment terms as noted above,they are repayabl- on demand.The f.11owing is a summary of the related loans: 2011 2010 -oads and streetl'•hts 92,868 193,716 Community faci• ies, libraries and parks 235,770 360,844 Protection se- ices 445,579 520,145 Environme al services 11,962 23,475 Munici.. .uilding 20,669 25,292 806,848 1,123,472 Page 14 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 46 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Notes to the consolidated financial statements December 31, 2011 8. Post-employment benefit liability (a) Post-employment benefit liability The City makes available to qualifying employees who retire before the ag: of 65,the opport ity to continue their coverage for benefits such as post-retirement extended 'ealthcare benefit . Coverage ceases at the age of 65.The City also provides full time and •erg anent part-ti ►e employees a sick time entitlement and any unused entitlement is acc.m , • ear to y•ar.This accumulated entitlement is not vested and is forfeited at the time of etirementi: The Corporation of the City of Pickering 4 Notes to the consolidated financial statements December 31, 2011 8. Post-employment benefit liability(continued) (b) Workplace Safety and Insurance Board(WSIB)benefit liabilities Effective January 1,2001,the City became a Schedule II employer under •e Workplace Safi & Insurance Act and follows a policy of self insurance for the risk associate* with paying bene'is for workplace injuries for all its employees.The WSIB administers the clai s r, ted to work, ace injuries and is reimbursed by the City.The most recent actuarial valu.. io a WSIB •-nefits was performed at December 31,2011. Information about the City's WSI liability is as follows: 201 2010 $ $ Accrued WSIB liability, beginning of year 1,. 2,898 1,368,198 Current service cost 118,460 301,800 Interest on accrued benefits 105,300 97,400 Amortization of estimation adjustment gain (996,074) - Benefits paid during the year (73,725) (94,500) Accrued WSIB liability,end of year 826,859 1,672,898 The main actuarial assumptions emplo ed in the actuaria aluations are as follows: (i) Discount rate The present value as at De.-mber 3 1 o he future benefits was determined using a discount rate of 3.75% (2e 0-6.0%). (ii) Inflation rate The rate of inflation as assumed to b- 2.5% per annum. (iii) WSIB Administr. ion Rate Liabilities for l SI= 'efits hav: .een increased 25%to reflect the administration rate charged by SI e A WSIB reserve Fun.4;as -stablished in 2001.The Reserve Fund balance at December 31, 2011 w:s$2,374,028(20 0-$2,021,105). In addition,the City purchased two insurance polici s that protect the ' ity against significant claims to the City.The occupational accident ins.rance pays loss c:ims up to$500,000 per work related accident.The excess workers compensation inde ,nity insurance has a$500,000 deductible and will pay for claims up to .nd including$15 00,000 per work related accident. 9. Long ert �' ies (a The ba''t .f I.ng-term liabilities is made up of the following: 2011 2010 $ $ The nicipality is responsible for the payment of p ' cipal and interest charges on long-term [abilities issued by the Regional Municipality of Durham on the City's behalf. At the end of the year, the outstanding principal amount of this liability is 19,131,687 16,582,742 Page 16 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 48 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Notes to the consolidated financial statements December 31, 2011 9. Long-term liabilities(continued) (b) The above long-term liabilities have maturity dates of July 12,2011,2016 an 021, November , 2012, November 21,2012 and 2018,July 15,2014, December 23, 2014,O ober 15,2015 an 2020 and September 29,2016 and 2021 with various interest rates rangi from 1.10%to 5.%;%. Principal repayments are summarized as follows: 2012 3,688,665 2013 2,302,256 2014 2,188,598 2015 1,776,073 2016 1,731,168 Thereafter 7,444,927 19,131,687 (c) Long-term liabilities include a principal sum of ,057,000 as' fu'dable Debentures'which may be raised by the issuance of debentures over ., further period no o exceed 10 years. (d) The above long-term liabilities have been .:proved by Counc' by-law.The annual principal and interest payments required to service thee liabilities are wi 'in the annual debt repayment limit prescribed by the Ministry of Municipal ffairs and Housing. (e) Interest expense recorded in the ye. re:1 : to these .ng-term liabilities is$734,143(2010- $692,082). NIIII 10. Tangible capital assets Information relating to tangible capital assets is as .flows: (i) Contributed tangible ca."al assets The City records tan."•le capital assets ontributed by an external party at fair value on the date contributed.Typica ex- ''1is are roads, storm sewers and sidewalks installed by a developer as part of a subdivis'.n •Z L:,:,-en agreement. Contributions of tangible capital assets in 2011 amounted to$6:1,938 I.0-$3 031,356). (ii) Tangible ca. 'al assets recogni ed at nominal value Land und-r roads are assig -d a nominal value of one Canadian dollar because this land only support: or is intended to : pport road infrastructure and the majority of land acquired supporting road . owances was act ired at no cost. (iii) W. ks• art and hist. ical treasures he4 mu:eum which holds various historical treasures and historical buildings pertaining to the .- a-d history of the City of Pickering.These items are not recognized as tangible capital as . s the financial statements because a reasonable estimate of the future benefits associated " h such property cannot be made.Any acquisition or betterment of these assets is recognizes as an expense in the financial statements. (iv) Other The ,et book value of tangible capital assets not being amortized because they are under co truction is$2,327,618(2010-$3,962,111). i uring the year,there were no write-downs of assets(2010-$Nil)and no interest was capitalized during the year(2010-$Nil). Page 17 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 49 CO in M O O1 N 10 in 0.7 CO U) N 00 1 I 1D Of /0 N 0 CO p0 CD 00 00 CO h O' N 10 .4 CD 0 n O N W. b 0 CD 01 a co . 1100 co to OD Oro M M e- s- N C 69 M (0 CO ' ' ' ' 00 r• N (O O N N 2 N(O y N N N C in C O M M N M N Q ob N OW CO ' Sr Or in 0 0 in 0 N N N N (r0 r 'M M N CD 3 M M O N N 4' 1O in 00 CD N N .- M 3 LL 2.C N f9 00 N 01 in O Of in in 0 0 (p 0) co r N 00) Oro N. N C') CO t.) C O) d O O co in n 00 CO-00 CO J p 00 0 7 r 1O (O 0 CO O Sr e C C ' N CO 00 CO in n CO N N 1O dY N n 3C 0 CO 1O (O CO l0 co CL O • W N W sr U) O C C O 2 1O O C O `Cr CO e- 0) 0 CO O) e- e- I- C 4:t C >+N - O M ' N CO n ' u N- V) Ui p (0 N. n N CO W in E O LCO M N N CO 0O') l0 N N (O n N T CO L C ' O) 19 co n M N. C N in Sr Y O n in M co co in N , et co 00 co, co c0 0) CO in n CO ( in 1O in CO } 2 V CO n N M 01 V)C CO Z Z N!n M n n O O 2 co C CO 1n O N so M C ' n 00 ' O n d y O N N 0 CO CO K 3 3 R CO ('7 n (O 0 t N D N n C' O. 2 0) N N - 00 0) 00 O Z O N O 00 00 C C M N _ to C CO 0 N •PEI I 0 CO CO 10 n (O 00 0 O T t Cl) "O CO C n M 0 CO CO CO 3 (0 co sr, n N lO n n 0_' /L� O) n O N M O V/ j M in 1O M CO * LL N 0 r N 1O N N M CO N CO N e- CO C C •••4 AW ' ` .41 co CO m 0 1N M V' (N0 N N N I.... O Of n N n 41 Sr O y OM (h 0-n N:N i 0 E > co W C n co M 0O Y••il O CO (o v 00 C 09 CO CO O N N n C 111 n • S �� Z'N n CO CD OC) 0 10O (0 N (D r l C Q (O co- M M (O O M (n O v �I L '7 M n co O (0 U) M N CO (I N y N CO Sr VS N m to N N CO N 0 n 1t) CO CI 0 s -. M CO N N CD in w N C fD O n 0 N r 0) N �• . r�1 = v 00 n n CO- M ao 0) in T /i='•1I C m CCO N CO CO C N CO O. (C0 0/ Q �i CO N C CO 0 0) 0C/ CO Q� V C t9 11 M M O ■ 1 , , O �1 C Q) CO CO Oiwt ,w J 0 C (0 00 CO .1....����V/�� f 000 N CO 00•• •r1 N CO CO CO CD tO sr sr sr CItt O ca Oo � a �1A N M "� T `� CD 'c » O i0 O E f0 �) co CI C co C N 0) T E C co N 7. N 0 U c _ p C C V r D m CO •N o N 3 /0 t•" 0(0 CC �, N C d A 21 10 .6' , a 0 0 0 O) O s OV) _E OV) 0 E c 8 8 O o m 0 -0< How (c° 3 iv ¢ vi¢ (�° « .5 Z Q ° 0m < � co <ma -I CO ' O a9 N co N M 0) N n M O) 0) O N N M S! {: O M m N CO h w CO (0 N O) N a0 (O co CO N O C O) ao N a` V 0 M 0 OD Cl) N 0) Of N N CO O (0 0) v) s l0 CO CO .-- CO t` W (n 1- (D CO N. CO d co co •- .- s- ti c (o 0 D5 . . . ° v a A r V, co 0))c ado 0) N y c N M CO Q q+f N (9 co M CO 0 CO V CV 2 N co M M co CD (VD r V 0) M O N N O w V O N - (n) LL Z.C (0 f9 N. O) (D CO co 0) n W O �0 M u) 0 N n a m v 0 0 co ao te a) d (D c') O N OO N- N J p W co n V ao co_ aUO N E ui DI ei e- a) 69 co N /b V V O(0 fV cl •-• ap C9 U) co CO o) O CO r O p a N N N O 0) O1 N. N V 2 N 5- OO 0) O S et 0 ) 0O O O) O 00 2 5 c -1 (9 n m .4. o) (0 u) coo NJ °- o aNa vm ((0 (0 n vO) o C "O N co 0 N CO M n N N CO O p U W co N N n N N N- N a) L ( (0 69 N N. .- co V 0) CD N. (O 2 - 0) V V 0 N N M CO �o co O ?OO N O (O a) • 3 �� O C.) N .4- N N D1 co OO CO M 5 2 f/J \, � (O I� O z N Z C u) W N I a9 N CO C M e. N . N N 0 0 N CO N d V D y M U) • N CO d O 00 O) a0 V Z m O Ni s_ M N O N p N. V V CO CJO ` rn c0) U)) • ( a) f9 N O) co co O) N- CO a0 y c 2 a (0 (D co M (D u) o am 2 p (0 N N 00 co O) 0�) a. CD 2 V a0 M 0)- m O 00 ed p V co O) aM-- aD N Oy, 2 O CO M N (� ,] W O N CV- s- e- V N l,(O� V .- c0 `�O\Q 0 69 ,) d N N K aUo (D CO V �.y �a N M N- OO 0 M N O i�_I CD CO V N 0 m r N V O 1.1 O 10 (O M u0 C f9 N a) OD CO n N V CI•�` �) Z'a) 0)) CO V O N- V el CO C CO O CO 1 co E N 0)) ( CO 0 n O n V v �y .0 0 N C] OO CO CO .(� N 0 N n a v N O) N M V0 �) CV N V a) N n N 43. N 0) N O (lC M O) N O thial till V CO O CO- V M U) C '_ N. co M r O) )- M' N(. 0 N co co O co O C co N Ni N N"d co (0 ( N = � .. a 69 v 0o r u) O 'ay j co () O 0 •� (n d t- 03 n O O 1. -4 0 N N CO cO et 05 et 03- et O O N Q C C c . ^ p 0 �� V Cl)1� N M 0 2 N >' N• y; © � d w W ti' p o l• 0 W cn�) (y C C C d T E C W a) T p cm) O .0 C 2 C)V-. C -o ',5 0 C W V as ��� — a) w co a N a ' d o R c o C o W ' o a A, U p T o.o E G U w 4,1.,A) c E O C C O N u 1 0 p a Q 2 0 A -o Q a) < � 2 1 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Notes to the consolidated financial statements December 31, 2011 11. Accumulated surplus The City's accumulated surplus is comprised of the following: 011 410 Capital fund 0,0 , I,355,677 Operating fund 125,09 125,092 Equity in Veridian Corporation 70,585,144 69,231,568 Tangible capital assets 187,940,852 187,669,237 Post employment benefits liability (3,039,600 (2,703,900) Internal loans (806,8, ;) (1,123,472) Net long-term liabilities (19,131 ;87) (16,582,742) WSIB benefit liabilities (8 .,859) (1,672,898) Reserves set aside for special purposes by Council Working capital 400,000 400,000 Self insurance 962,707 962,707 Replacement of capital equipment 852,792 1,090,998 Contingencies 1,447,278 1,277,278 Rate stabilization 16,310,644 16,579,632 City's share for development charge 4,370,874 3,695,929 Continuing studies 582,055 406,984 Vehicle replacement 93,722 149,158 Easement settlement D 17,595 - Eastern branch 155,000 130,000 Move Ontario 97,483 14,533 Capital asset management 240,000 165,000 Economic stabilization 830,000 830,000 Land Purchase 194,403 - Seaton Development Rev'-w 2,133,752 - Financial Systems 175,000 - Reserve funds set asid- or.e- ial purpo • by Council Recreation progra : an.40 •'-- 148,547 145,483 Acquisition of tan; •le cap . ,ssets 1,451,430 1,419,538 Squash courts - 116 WSIB 2,374,028 2,021,105 Animal shel -r 196,370 173,850 Men's slo pitch 138,985 136,359 Operati• s Centre 412,365 - 278,493,563 274,897,232 12. Pe ion=nts e City makes ributions to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Fund(OMERS),which is a multi-employer . an,on behalf of the members of its staff.The plan is a defined benefit plan which specifies the a r ount of the retirement benefit to be received by the employees based on the length of service and r. es of pay. Contributi• s on account of current service for 2011 were$2,561,177(2010-$2,219,285). Page 20 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 52 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Notes to the consolidated financial statements December 31, 2011 13. Trust Funds Trust funds administered by the City amounting to$318,169(2010-$308,443)hav- not been includ- in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position nor have their operations be: included in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. 14. Related party transactions di Veridian Corporation The City of Pickering receives electricity and services from Veridian Porporation (Note , ,a corporation in which the City is a principal shareholder. 2' 1 2010 $ $ Transactions Revenues Interest on promissory notes 1,426,852 1,588,823 Property taxes levied 46,785 49,652 Expenses Electrical energy and services 1,788,931 1,668,472 Balances Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 371,799 378,767 Promissory notes receivable 25,069,000 25,069,000 15. Guarantees D In the normal course of business, 'e City enters into :greements which contain guarantees.The City's primary guarantees are as follow.: (i) The City has provided in t emnities under le.se agreements for the use of various facilities or land. Under the terms of these agreements the ity agrees to indemnify the counterparties for various items including, but it limited to, all lia•ilities, loss, suits,and damages arising during,on or after the term of the agr;em-. he maxi • m amount of any potential future payment cannot be reasonably esti :ted. , ) (ii) The City inde -nifies all em.b ye-s and elected officials including Library employees and board members fo various items including, but not limited to,all costs to settle suits or actions due to associatio, with the City,su•'ect to certain restrictions.The City has purchased liability insurance to mitig. e the cost of any •otential future suits or actions.The term of the indemnification is not explici y defined, but is li• ited to the period over which the indemnified party served as an emp .yee or elected o cial of the City.The maximum amount of any potential future payment ca•no •- reasonabl estimated. (iii) he %a me -d into agreements that may include indemnities in favour of third parties, such as pur . : :n. sale agreements,confidentiality agreements,engagement letters with advisors and consu .n outsourcing agreements, leasing contracts, information technology agreements and service -.greements.These indemnification agreements may require the City to compensate counterpa•ies for losses incurred by the counterparties as a result of breaches in representation and reg ations or as a result of litigation claims or statutory sanctions that may be suffered by the counte •arty as a consequence of the transaction. The terms of these indemnities are not explicitly defi -d and the maximum amount of any potential reimbursement cannot be reasonably estimated. The n. ure of these indemnification agreements prevents the City from making a reasonable estimate of the 'aximum exposure due to the difficulties in assessing the amount of liability which stems from the un•redictability of future events and the unlimited coverage offered to counterparties. Historically,the ty has not made any significant payments under such or similar indemnification agreements and herefore no amount has been accrued in the balance sheet with respect to these agreements. Page 21 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY b3 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Notes to the consolidated financial statements December 31, 2011 16. Contingent liabilities Litigation The City has been named as a defendant in certain legal actions in which dam..es have been so •ht. The outcome of these actions is not determinable as at the date of reporting .'d accordingly, no provision has been made in these financial statements for any liabilities whit result. 17. Budget figures The 2011 Budget adopted by Council on February 21,2011 was not ,,repared on a bas': consistent with that used to report actual results.The budget was prepared on a .dified accrual ba 's while Public Sector Accounting Standards require a full accrual basis of acco ting.The budget 'gures treated all tangible capital asset acquisitions as expenditures and did not• clude amortizatio• expense on tangible capital assets.As a result,the budget figures presented in the Statements of O•-rations and Change in Net Financial Assets represent the budget adopted by Cou•cil '• February 2 ,2011 with adjustments as follows: 2011 2011 Counci Non TCA Budget approv•d expenditure- presented in bu get from cap' al Amortization statements $ $ $ $ Revenue Taxation 51,1 - - 51,121,693 Capital 7,841, 0 - - 7,841,870 Other 16,718,8 - - 16,718,825 75,682,38 - - 75,682,388 Expenditures General government 14,7 5,272 100,000 541,940 15,367,212 Protection to persons a-d •-41•-rty 1',424,284 25,000 641,262 20,090,546 Transportation servic•s • 8,601,226 15,000 3,660,249 12,276,475 Environmental se 'ces 255,440 - 2,100,259 2,355,699 Social and famil services 603,115 - - 603,115 Recreational . d cultural services 19,980,528 - 2,740,499 22,721,027 Planning an development 3,777,674 - - 3,777,674 67,367,539 140,000 9,684,209 77,191,748 Annual rplus(deficit) 8,314,849 (140,000) (9,684,209) (1,509,360) Capit. e • • . es (24,537,825) 140,000 - (24,397,825) Tra-sfers r. rve :nd eserve fun. 2,372,246 Rividend from Veri•tan Corporation 2,483,180 Principal repay •nt of debt (2,779,450) Debt •roceed 14,022,000 Prior ear o•-ratin• fund sur•Ius 125 000 Page 22 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 54 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Notes to the consolidated financial statements December 31, 2011 18. Comparative figures Certain of the prior year comparative figures have been reclassified to conform to t'e current year's presentation. 19. Segmented information The City of Pickering is a diversified municipal government that provides - wit A:s�, a of se ices to its residents. Distinguishable functional segments have been separately di losed in th■:,-g 'ented information.The nature of the segments and the activities they enco •ass are as follow-. General Government This item relates to revenues and expenses of the City itself an• cannot be directly attributed to a specific segment. Protection to Persons and Property Protection includes fire services,animal control, bylaw service •&ding in:pection and enforcement of the building code to ensure the safety and protection • all citizen .4d t -ir property. Public Works Services Public works includes construction and mainten. ce of the City's r•adways, including snow removal, sidewalk repairs,street lighting, maintenance • the storm water - stem and environmental services. Social and Family Services Social services for assistance or service: for -4!Rr Recreation and Culture Services Recreation and cultural services i lude recreation p •grams, maintenance and rental of facilities and parks, operation of the City's m .eum and library s-rvices. Planning and Development Planning and developmen provides a numb: of services including municipal planning and review of all property development pl ns Segmented informati• has — • id'd in the following pages. Page 23 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY N Ol CO 0 • 'a b4 M CO aa r CO 10 I- CO n N H) N 0 V CO r ✓ d OO CO N M co I- 0 N V r CO r /0 CO r 1'9 0 N 0) Is 10 CO r P 10 0 I.I- CO b CO I-M N -a ti 00 O 4 r CO M N 00 O of N O r r CO co 1A in co CO co I- 0) CO 10 N N. 10 O 0) .O !O 14) CO CO 00 M r N r to N 10 e O 10 C N O N M N N F- M 0)r ^ M O U +' co to- O ' ' 10 O t0 CO •. O 1A h r P. r C CD O) cll. P M M r or N a) 10 CO at C o r co I` r N P. n O ti O CA r 10 CO 10 O 00 4(0 N 10 O 4 r 00 O N co ` F r In M CO 0 14 O) 0) O) aa 1A CO I- d LO ID CO r 1A N 0) 10 N 1A 0) o I M N 16 of c- .f a) 'a >wNED. NIA N Nf N ‘I` ' aaN E f• 0.) COO O) O c0 0 CO I-co co R _ .) CD N r N 0 M CO N 1A 0 0 41 O N U) 'a +' co ' co ' co ' ' ' O) co O CO N ' CO CO 0 C R co N N 0 O 1^A CO CO O O M Cl N r r M CO N C > N N N N C R y CL 'a C . b/J�\ 1A ' M ' ' 00 N et r M h N r ' O o co CO CO 4.0 CO O r CO 10 0 IA r CD z CO O) CD 0) O CO CO M O) CO N 10 0 R . , NZ 1A 10 - 44 N M (0 /0 O N CO co v CO I` b v(0 M 00 CO C0 0) F- M co V r N r h 10 N CO 0 ce c r . CO N N a cc at D z a. •^y U) Cl) fR r 10 ' CA CO ' a-0 M M n CO 10 N co ` Ci M h CO M N M N •- et 10 O) CO e! V M CO r CO ti CO M r N Cl. of Io Cl) ' 3 � ti O M r 1A r r j CO r O) F- a A�/11 O O) I- CO r r r 4 r Cl I. t0 x t) y 141 r M CD ""r -r 1A P. CO 0_. v.. 11 4/ 14f •~ v O.. Q C N It? t0 ' ' ' • CO r Cl r O - er O) co 10 .) O C 1A M N CO 0 r r v M Co) 1A O !� �7 0 o ti CO CO Is O CD 1p • CO_O) r r+ u O O t0 I� O O) 00 N t0 CO CO `F�' <O t0 N 00 O) N !O M <O r - r •co) C O. Q. r ..r C.I.to 1D r O CO N 10 N r M 16 N CO .-r 4. aC+ r r .r.. 4) •v _ 0 4= o a N +a 7 a) c u, O c f° o - 0 co 0 �i a) °- c •_ ;d ° a aa)) ° o cn (0 = *Me � 0 z a) co N o n e a 0 aiu CA C> C '� _° @ O O aa)) > Caoco a) u, w u, c ui O N rnv T. o iii C C co c a o N CI 0 75 U)@ o o co co m N;.,I M +� o y o 0 0 o C y X > C 7 .� L C N@ C O L N@ E ^O co w> O` DHOOWOOYa oq) MOQO -° C V] co H W H Q Z Q 0) r i . 56 N N CA a(C 0 - U 0 •-- N — CO U) M CO N N. L) M — r- t` U) — N 0 0r` toL) CONM — st NM - NMI O N' 00 LO N M N 00 N CO — — CO C10 CO M co N 'a — N. (D .- ti • O O O CO Ln .--ao M CO ) N (ONI- CDMtia) — — LC) Nr OOa) - 0 N 0 CO O W 0 0 Cr) a) N CO M CO N- C V N- �N M Cr; U 7 I M a) — Cr; O U (9 CEA (N NNCA ' 22 N. n NCOL) CDCONM O ti � ti � CO CO — CO 0) 0 M — 0 CO 0 C a) — 00 o co N LC) 1 0 O 0) — LO — N. Cr) R t` N- N- LnNM t` dMa) O if CO a) C N. Cr) N. a) LO 0) .- ill a) an N NT 0 > O 1- NM MNt a) LnM (Dt` O LN M N co 1,•:- ' O a >+ N to co co 0 N N. ' ,- O C - a) MN — a) N- - d' NO CO E .V CO — N. N. N N LO V 63a Z - h a) co- MLn (D y O— 0 N - N •-• Mr (O — V CV -p C ER ' CD ' LO ' ' ' N M I,- — — ' 0) a0 in C O V' a) N CO N CC] M (X) N CO N. N. oO M t` 0) CD 0) — CO o) Q to V O — O CO Ln .- CA O o0 — O O LO O M O co C — — O O N- O C > N N N CU d a C N EAC\ � t�M — ' ' V N dt CO Ln o0 N' co N N • n ✓)�4JCQ? N N- — Li" LO N. - N N. � .. 0 M O N M C N. N N M > �t O Ni O) M — O — �' O CO M — O N C) OCD N `-'a0N N- — a) — hCD U -O N M LC) CO 0) Cr) 0) LC) N N CD c NLn a0 cLn N N O CC ea �. a D tt a =J ) U) EPr N an ' ' CO CA co co ti' — ' I� a) Ln O) O ` U CO N- N- 0 N N N CO M Ln CIO In Ln t ' a0 00 CIO in a) • — M N — N CO 1••1 — O CO — N- (O (D in- CO O t` N O. v • O N (0 et (D co O — co co — N O w CO .V Cn N — MO — W M , • Ln - 00 0 CC ail 73 O LL -a-)�„= C co to N N ' ' ' ' LC) O) 00 b0 ,- 00 CD o0 �MI N O C C) N O CO O co o0 Ln Ln Q � 'U N Cl) Cq M t` NT M 0) N — a) O !� :D Cli 0)) — N N O CM M •�- M `I••� O Q Q Cp o0 In O CD Ln to O C� d � a ,- N CO — � (O� T ` CA (a CM) FYI •0 U .l 0 'C a) O t4=44 :. (a t- b c @U = N o 0- c .4-' (a (o O (� c C) N CD �� b A C 7 ; C a) a O. U fl. � " N C O w a y CO ( 7 O .� ^L �',+ O . > (CS O C N N a) N O N c a) `' `) a N O C O a C rn C .^. V rn a) CD N Cn 0) 7 N a O ,n U rl 'a N L N > C N a) C 4= IZ•1 (1) M rte. N .y. U ctf N O `) > N an as.� •� (4 N O. ^fl a) > CODHOUwOO �° 0-(/) 2000 .° C v) N ce I- W H Q 14 U Z Q 0) 57 Financial statements of The Corporatio of the City of Pickeri ' g Trust !unds December 31, 2011 D O O FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 58 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Trust Funds December 31, 2011 Table of contents Independent Auditor's Report 1-2 Statement of financial activities and fund balances 3 Statement of financial position 4 Notes to the financial statements 5 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 59 Deloitte&Touc•e LLP 5140 Yonge reet Suite 1700 Toronto 0 M2N 6L7 Canada Tel: •16-601-6150 F. 416-601-6151 • .deloitte.ca Independent Auditor's Report di To the Members of Council, Inhabitants and Ratepayers of The Corporation of the City of Pickering , We have audited the accompanying financial statements of r e ',••eation o'the City of Pickering Trust Funds,which comprise the statement of financial position :s at Dece .-r 3 ,2011,and the statement of financial activities and fund balance for the year then e .ed,and a summ. of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information. Management's Responsibility for the Financia tatements Management is responsible for the preparatio• an i .resent. ion of these financial statements in accordance with Canadian generally accep -d acco 71 g.ri'ciples,and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to e. able the pre.i.ra on of financial statements that are free from material misstatement,whether due to and or error. Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to expres a ::-nion on t •se financial statements based on our audit.We conducted our audit in acco ■an' • _ .na.'an generally accepted auditing standards.Those standards require that we comply w'• ethica Q uire •ents and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whethe'the financial at ments are free from material misstatement. An audit involves p-rforming proced. es to obtain evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial stateme. s.The procedur-, selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of •aterial misstate -nt of the financial statements,whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk ass,ss •- • ,the aud' or considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentatio' of - cial atements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumst. ces,bu .r e purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's intern. control. An a di also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reas. ableness of acc* nting estimates made by management,as well as evaluating the overall pr; entation of the f ancial statements. We believe that e audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opi 'on. . FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 60 Opinion In our opinion,the financial statements present fairly,in all material respects,the financial pos. ion of The Corporation of the City of Pickering Trust Funds as at December 31,2011 and the resul : of its operations for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accou ng principles. Chartered Accountants Licensed Public Accountants June 11,2012 Page 2 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 61 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Trust Funds Statement of financial activities and fund balance year ended December 31, 2011 20 2010 Revenues Interest 9,726 1 ,093 Net revenues A 9,726 11,093 Fund balance, beginning of year ,I: 443 297,350 Fund balance,end of year 318,69 308,443 Page 3 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 62 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Trust Funds Statement of financial position as at December 31, 2011 20 2010 Assets Investments 312,015 27 ,351 Interest receivable 6,154 1,092 018,169 308,443 Trust Fund position 319 308,443 Page 4 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY The Corporation of the 6 3 City of Pickering Trust Funds Notes to the financial statements December 31, 2011 1. Accounting policies The financial statements of The Corporation of the City of Pickering Trust Fun• are the represe .tions of management prepared in accordance with Canadian generally accepted .'co •ting principle: using accounting standards for Not-for-Profit Organizations. Significant accounting policies adopted include: Basis of accounting Interest revenue is recorded as earned. Expenses are reported on the accrual basis of accounting whic recognizes expe'ses as they are incurred and measurable as a result of the receipt of goods o services and the 'reation of a legal obligation to pay. Investments Investments are recorded at cost.The cost of invest 'ents approxi :te their fair value. 2. Future accounting changes In December 2010,the CICA issued a new ac-ounting framewor applicable to Not-for-Profit Organizations. Effective for fiscal years begi•ning on or after J. uary 1,2012 Not-for-Profit Organizations will have to choose betwee International Fin. cial Reporting Standards(IFRSs)and Canadian accounting standards for Not- sr-P ta. •.niza'•ns,whichever suits them best. Early adoption of these standards is permitt:•. The Mr d: currently plan to adopt the new accounting standards for Not-for-Profit Organiz. ons for its i ..I y ar beginning on January 1,2012.The impact of transitioning to these new standar. is expected to b: minimal. 3. Dorothy Card Estate The City of Pickering admi ' ters a trust fund .r the Dorothy Card Estate for the care and upkeep of the destitute elderly.The fun• sal. ce is compri.ed of investments and accumulated interest amounting to $318,169(2010-$308, 43 4. Statement of cash lows A statement of c•.sh flows has not •-en presented as the information is readily determinable from the financial state -ents presented. Page 5 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 64 Financial statements of City of Pickerin■ Public Library : oard December 31,2011 D O O FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY City of Pickering Public Library Board 5 December 31, 2011 Table of contents Independent Auditor's Report -2 Statement of financial position 3 Statement of operations 4 Statement of change in net debt 5 Statement of cash flows 6 Notes to the financial statements 7-10 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 66 Deloitte&Touc•e LLP 5140 Yonge reet Suite 1700 Toronto 0 M2N 6L7 Canada Tel: •16-601-6150 F. :416-601-6151 .deloitte.ca Independent Auditor's Report To the Members of The City of Pickering Public Library Board, Members of Council, Inhabitants and Ratepayers of the City of Pickering We have audited the accompanying financial statements oft'e Cl. i�'ickeri'g Public Library Board, which comprise the statement of financial position as at D,cember 011 and the statements of operations,change in net debt and cash flows for the ye. then ended,an. . summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory informatio Management's Responsibility for the Financia tatements Management is responsible for the preparatio• an a .resent. ion of these financial statements in accordance with Canadian public sector ac .untin� d ,and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to e•able the pr- .ra 'on of financial statements that are free from material misstatement,whether due to a and or error. Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to expres an ••inion on the e financial statements based on our audit.We conducted our audit in accor.an.; 1 Canad'.n generally accepted auditing standards.Those standards require that we comply wi ethic. quire 'ents and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whethe he financia at; ents are free from material misstatement. An audit involves p: forming proced es to obtain evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial stateme s.The procedure: selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of .terial misstatem; t of the financial statements,whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk ass: s -.ts,the aud''or considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentatio of,'e'.:cial atements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumst. ces,b got .r t•e purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's interna control.An . .di .lso includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reaso•ableness of acco.nting estimates made by management,as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the fi'ancial statements. e believe that e audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opin.an. FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 67 Opinion In our opinion,the financial statements present fairly,in all material respects,the financial pos. ion of the City of Pickering Public Library Board as at December 31,2011 and the results of its operations,its changes in net debt and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadia .ublic sector accounting standards. Chartered Accountants Licensed Public Accountants June 11,2012 Page 2 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 68 City of Pickering Public Library Board Statement of financial position as at December 31, 2011 2011 2010 (Note 7) $ $ Financial assets Cash ',260 2 60 Accounts receivable 875 580 Due from the Government of Canada n134 21,142 Due from City of Pickering 4 252,887 154,4W 276,869 Liabilities Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 211,2 : 300,353 Post-employment benefits liability(Note 2) 150 -00 119,500 36 ,033 419,853 Net debt 7,540) (142,984) Non-financial assets Tangible capital assets(Note 4) 1,341,173 1,535,730 Prepaid expense 56,740 23,484 1,397,913 1,559,214 Accumulated surplus(Note 5) 1,190,373 1,416,230 Page 3 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY ti.+ .� City of Pickering Public Library Board Statement of operations year ended December 31, 2011 2011 2010 Budget (Unaudited) (Note 6) $ Revenue City of Pickering grants 4,860,265 4,:•1, 9 4 45,060 Federal grants 14,388 1 1,654 Province of Ontario grants 144,005 162,78 160,367 Fines and other receipts 201,465 187,463 185,463 Total revenue 5,220,123 5,260,990 5,092,544 Expenses Operating Salaries Salaries and wages 3,0: ,3 3,1.3,517 3,075,779 Fringe benefits 32,0 21,340 652,302 .,817,390 3,854,857 3,728,081 Material,supplies and utilities Books 92,000 111,241 96,574 Utilities 175,004 172,851 172,463 Other supplies 61,011 61,250 69,447 328 s 04 345,342 338,484 Services Repairs and maintenance 303,528 316,457 305,257 Insurance 49,949 46,268 43,894 Travel 4,500 4,524 4,443 Consulting and professional 64,340 54,878 37,165 Advertising 16,500 19,909 17,526 Conference 6,200 6,111 6,061 Postage O 5,500 4,152 4,248 Telephone 69,692 69,228 70,618 Seminars and educ. on 18,500 19,747 15,606 Vehicle repairs an• maintenance 5,200 2,706 2,708 Miscellaneous 90,470 97,959 85,314 634,379 641,939 592,840 Capital relat;• Amortiz. lo<r.•, se 647,514 644,709 891,394 ail ‘Total •aerating - l e 5,427,287 5,486,847 5,550,799 Ann .1 deficit (207,164) (225,857) (458,255) Ac'umulated surplus •eginning of year 1,419,484 1,416,230 1,874,485 ccumulated sur• us,end of year 1,212,320 1,190,373 1,416,230 Page 4 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 70 City of Pickering Public Library Board Statement of change in net debt year ended December 31, 2011 2011 2010 Budget (Unaudited) (Note 6) Annual deficit (207,164) (2,2 ,857) (45:,255) Acquisition of tangible capital assets (440,350) (4 , ) 433,439) Amortization of tangible capital assets 647,514 644,70 891,394 207,164 194,557 457,955 Change in prepaid expense - (33,256 15,498 Change in net debt - (64,5 .) 15,198 Net debt, beginning of year 142 .84 (142 !84) (158,182) Net debt,end of year 1• ,984 (20 ,540) (142,984) Page 5 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 71 City of Pickering Public Library Board Statement of cash flows year ended December 31, 2011 2011 2010 (Note 7) $ $ Operating transactions Annual deficit (2 •,857) (458 55) Non cash item Amortization of tangible capital assets 6 ,709 :91,394 52 433,139 Change in non-cash operating items Increase in accounts receivable (295 (321) Decrease(increase)in due from Government of Canada 10,01 ; (21,493) Decrease(increase)in due from City of Pickering 112,:63 (105,323) (Decrease)increase in accounts payable and accrued liabilities (8!,120) 125,502 Decrease in deferred revenue - (13,913) Increase in post-employment benefit liability 31,300 300 (Increase)decrease in prepaid expense (33,256) 15,498 31,300 250 450,152 433,389 Capital transactions Acquisition of tangible assets (450,152) (433,439) Net decrease in cash - (50) Cash, beginning of year 2,260 2,310 Cash,end of year 2,260 2 260 Page 6 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 72 City of Pickering Public Library Board Notes to the financial statements December 31, 2011 1. Significant accounting policies The financial statements of the City of Pickering Public Library Board(the"Library :oard")are the representations of management prepared in accordance with Canadian public s- tor accounting standards established by the Public Sector Accounting oard("PSA ")of the -nadian Institute • Chartered Accountants. Significant accounting policies adopted by the Library Board are as follow . Basis of accounting (a) Accrual basis of accounting Revenues and expenses are reported on the accrual basis o accounting.The . crual basis of accounting recognizes revenues as they are earned and -asurable;expenses are recognized,as they are incurred and measurable as a result of the recei 2t of goods and se, ices and the creation of a legal obligation to pay. (b) Non-financial assets (i) Tangible capital assets Tangible capital assets are recorded at c.-t less accumulat-• amortization. Cost includes all amounts that are directly attributable to =cquisition,develo 4 ment or betterment of the asset. The cost of the tangible capital asset amortized on a s aight-line basis over the estimated useful life as follows: Machinery&equipment to 25 yea Information technology hardwa'e \ t. ; y-:rs Library collection material , to 7 ears Furniture and fixtures 10 • 50 years One-half of the annual . ortization is charged in the year of acquisition and in the year of disposal. Other major assets'ncluding the Libr. buildings are owned by the City and are not reflected in these financial st. ements. (ii) Contribution/d.na'• o .-••ible apital assets Tangible c.•ital asse .kceiv-d as contributions or donations are recorded at their fair value at the date • receipt,and that .it value is also recorded as revenue. (iii) Intan•i2 e assets Int. gible assets are it recognized as assets in the financial statements. (c) Defe ed revenue D- er -• :,-nue re,.resents amounts which have been received for expenditures not yet incurred. hes: : ou' s wi be recognized as revenue in the fiscal year the related items are purchased. (. Post ea?. • e t benefits The present 'alue of the cost of providing employees with future benefits programs is recognized as employee earn these entitlements through service.Any actuarial gains or losses are amortized on a straigh line basis over the average remaining service period (ARSP)of employees. The actuary estima -d the ARSP to be 14 years. Page 7 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 73 City of Pickering Public Library Board Notes to the financial statements December 31, 2011 1. Significant accounting policies(continued) Basis of accounting(continued) (e) Use of estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with Canadian pub' s:.tor accounti • standards requires management to make estimates and assumptions at �-ct the repo,ed amount of assets, liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets - d lia•ilitt the •ate of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during a period.Actual results could differ from those estimates. Balances which require ignificant estima 's include employee future benefits and tangible capital assets. 2. Post employment benefits liability The Library Board makes available to qualifying employees ho etire before t e age of 65,the opportunity to continue their coverage for benefits such as .o,yeti ement e•ended healthcare benefits. Coverage ceases at the age of 65.The Library Board al-. pr.• L4full tim- and permanent part-time employees a sick time entitlement and any unused en' lement is :tum ated year to year.This accumulated entitlement is not vested and therefore's forfeited at the t' e of retirement or termination. The post-employment benefits obligation at Dece •er 31,2011 and e changes in the accrued benefit obligation for the 2011 fiscal year was determine. by actuarial valu.. ion prepared as at January 1,2011. Information about the Library oard's post e •loyment benefits abilities is as follows: 2011 2010 D $ $ Post-employment benefits liability, •-ginning of y r 119,500 119,200 Current service costs 23,300 17,500 Amortization of actuarial losses 11,100 3,900 Interest expense 15,300 9,300 Benefits paid during the ye. (18,400) (30,400) Post-employment benefit: lia••i ,end of y-:r 150,800 119,500 O2011 2010 $ $ Accrued post-: ployment benefi obligation 361,800 162,900 Unamortize• actuarial losses (211,000) (43,400) Post-employment benefits li..ility 150,800 119,500 The m•.in -."nr. 'al assu •tions employed in the actuarial valuations are as follows: (a) Cisco• 4it .,. ) The presen v. e as at December 31, 2011 of the future benefits was determined using a discount rate of 3.75°% (2010-5.5%). (b) Dental co The cu ent dental cost trend rate at January 1,2011 was 4.0% per annum. (c) Hea h costs -alth costs were assumed to increase at 8% in 2011 and decrease by 0.2%increments per year to .n ultimate rate of 5% per year in 2026 and thereafter. Page 8 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 74 City of Pickering Public Library Board Notes to the financial statements December 31, 2011 3. Pension agreements The Library Board makes contributions to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retire 'ent Fund (OMER: , which is a multi-employer plan,on behalf of eligible members of its staff.The Fla, is a defined ben-It plan that specifies the amount of the retirement benefit to be received by the e ployees based o he length of service and rates of pay. Apehalf Contributions in the amount of$206,947(2010-$166,343)were paid to • E o its members during the year. 4. Tangible capital assets Machinery Information Library Fur,iture and technology collection and equipment hardwar materials fixtures 2011 -- - $ $ $ $ $ Cost Balance beginning of year 9,992 79,495 5,810 •56 292,082 6,491,625 Additions during the year - - 4 1,152 - 450,152 Disposals during the year - - 4 -88,259 - 4,488,259 Balance, end of year 9,992 379,495 ,771,949 292,082 2,453,518 Accumulated amortization Balance, beginning of year 1 •99 D 5,8:6 4,537,879 90,661 4,955,895 Amortization 999 29 59 608,709 5,842 644,709 Accumulated amortization on disposals - - 4,488,259 - 4,488,259 Balance,end of year 2,498 355,015 658,329 96,503 1,112,345 Net book value 7,494 24,480 1,113,620 195,579 1,341,173 Oachinery Information Library Furniture a • technology collection and -quip -nt hardware materials fixtures 2010 $ $ $ $ $ Cost Balance •-ginning of year 9,992 405,830 5,376,617 292,082 6,084,521 Additio during the year - - 433,439 - 433,439 Disp•-als during the ye. - 26,335 - - 26,335 Bal-nc: f year 9,992 379,495 5,810,056 292,082 6,491,625 cumulate. .i.rti ation Balance, begin 'rig of year 500 313,511 3,692,006 84,819 4,090,836 Amortization 999 38,680 845,873 5,842 891,394 Accumulat-• amortization on dis•.sals - 26,335 - - 26,335 Balanc:,end of ear 1,499 325,856 4,537,879 90,661 4,955,895 Net bo• value 8 493 53 639 1 272 177 201 421 1 535 730 Page 9 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY City of Pickering Public Library Board 5 Notes to the financial statements December 31, 2011 5. Accumulated surplus Accumulated surplus consist of the following: 2011 010 $ $ Invested in capital assets 3 1,535,730 Post employment benefits liability (150,8 ) (119,500) 1,190,373 1,416,230 6. Budget figures The 2011 budget was not prepared on a basis consistent wit' that used to repo- actual results.The budget was prepared on a modified accrual basis while pu. lc l'tor accounti'g standards require a full accrual basis of accounting.The budget figures treated . to 'I apital .:set acquisitions as expenditures and did not include amortization expense •n tangs• - capital .ssets.The following provides a reconciliation from the approved budget to the bud•-t numbers ` e ed in the financial statements. 2011 TCA adju- ment Non A 2011 budget Council approved for City expen.'ures presented in budget ow ed assets fro , capital Amortization statements $ $ $ $ $ Revenue City of Pickering 4,860,265 - - - 4,860,265 Federal and provincial grants 158 .93 - - - 158,393 Other 20 ,465 - - 201,465 5 '20,123 - - - 5,220,123 Expenditures Salaries # ,390 - - - 3,817,390 Material,supplies and utilities 3 No04 - - - 328,004 Services 602,572 - 31,800 - 634,379 Amortization - - - 647,514 647,514 4,7, ,973 - 31,800 647,514 5,427,287 Annual s plus 472,150 - (31,800) (647,514) (207,164) Capital -xp:- res/ ad,,itio. (472,150) - 31,800 - (440,350) 7. omparative fig es Certain comparative figures have been reclassified to conform with the current year financial statement presentation. Page 10 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 7 6c`iq Report to. Executive Committee PICKERING Report Number: CS 17-12 Date: June 11, 2012 . From: Everett Buntsma Director, Community Services • Subject: Tender No. T-10-2012 - Tender for East Shore Community Centre Parking Lot Improvements - File: A-1440 Recommendation: • 1. That Report CS 17-12 of the Director, Community Services regarding Tender No. T-10-2012 for the East Shore Community Centre Parking Lot Improvements be received; 2. That the proposed works under Tender No. T-10-2012 is to include East Shore Community Centre-west side, parking lot reconstruction and drainage improvements; 3. That Tender No T-10-2012 submitted by Wyndale Paving Company Limited in the total tendered amount of$217,700.83 (HST included) and a net cost of $196,046.34 be accepted; 4. That the total gross project cost of$244,821 (HST included) and a net project cost of$220,469 (net of HST rebate) including the total tendered amount and other associated costs be approved; 5. That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services &Treasurer to finance the project as follows: ' a) the sum of$200,000 as provided for in the 2012 Capital Budget be increased to $220,000 and be financed through the issuance of debentures by the Regional Municipality of Durham for a period not to exceed five years, at a rate to be determined; b) the balance sum of$469 be funded from property taxes; c) that the annual repayment charges in the amount of approximately $47,350 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing in 2013, continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid, and any financing cost to be paid out of the Current Budget; Report CS 17-12 June 11, 2012 Subject: Tender No. T-10-2012 7 7 Tender for East Shore Community Centre Parking Lot Improvements Page 2 6. That the draft by-law attached to this report be enacted; and 7. Further that the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: As part of the 2012 Senior Centre Capital Budget, the existing parking lot area on the west side of the East Shore Community Centre was approved for reconstruction and drainage improvements work. Tender No. T-10-2012 was issued on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, and closed on Wednesday, May 9, 2012 with thirteen bidders responding. The low bid of$217,700.83 (HST included) submitted by Wyndale Paving Company Limited, is recommended for approval. The total gross project cost is estimated at $244,821 and the total net project cost is estimated at $220,469 (net of HST rebate). Financial Implications: 1.Tender Amount T-10-2012 $192,655.60 HST (13%) 25,045.23 Sub-Total 217,700.83 HST Rebate (11.24%) (21,654.49) Total $196,046.34 2. Approved Source of Funds 2012 Senior Centre Capital Budget Location Project Source of Funds Budget Required Code East Shore Community 5701.1203 Debt— 5 year $200,000 $220,000 Centre-West Side Parking Lot Reconstruction & Drainage Improvements Property Taxes 0 469 Total Funds Required $200,000 $220,469 CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CS 17-12 June 11, 2012 8 Subject: Tender No. T-10-2012 Tender for East Shore Community Centre Parking Lot Improvements Page 3 3. Estimated Project Costing Summary T-10-2012 — Tender for East Shore Community Centre Parking Lot Improvements $192,656 Miscellaneous & Tender Costs 1,500 Materials Testing 2,500 Contingency 20,000 Total 216,656 HST (13%) 28,165 Total Gross Project Cost 244,821 HST Rebate (11.24%) (24,352) Total Net Project Cost $220.469 Net Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds $(20,469) The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has updated the City's Annual Repayment Limit and certified that this loan and the repayment thereof falls within the City's Annual Repayment Limit for the debt and financial obligations, and therefore, Ontario Municipal Board approval is not required prior to City Council's authorization. Discussion: In 2011, Cosburn Giberson Consultants were retained by the City of Pickering to prepare drawings and specifications for the Parking Area Expansion at the East Shore Community Centre. The original design included both the reconstruction of the existing parking area and expansion of the parking onto the lot between the Community Centre and Peace Lutheran Church. During the 2011 Budget deliberations, it was decided that the existing parking area reconstruction would be deferred and that only the expansion of a gravel parking area would be completed in 2011. The expansion of the parking lot was completed in 2011. Report to Council CS 23-11 identified a total project cost of$602,776, with debenture financing in the amount of $325,000, and the balance funded from Rate Stabilization Reserve, Easement Settlement Reserve, and property taxes. As approved in the 2012 Budget, the City is now proceeding with the reconstruction of the existing parking area on the west side of the building. This component further identified debenture financing in the amount of$220,000, a 10% increase from the approved $200,000 budget, in order to make allowance for contingency cost. The estimated net project cost for this component is $220,469, with the balance to be funded from property taxes. CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CS 17-12 June 11,2012 Subject: Tender No. T-10-2012 Tender for East Shore Community Centre Parking Lot Improvements Page 4 Tender No. T-10-2012 was issued on Wednesday, April 18, 2012. An advertisement was placed in the Daily Commercial News and on the City's website. The tender closed on Wednesday, May 9, 2012 with fourteen bidders responding. The low bid of $217,700.83 (HST included) submitted by Wyndale Paving Company Limited is recommended for approval. Wyndale Paving Company Limited have previously worked for the City on Tender No. T-3-2007 the Reconstruction of Old Brock Road and a further reference check has been completed and is deemed acceptable by the Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works. The Health & Safety Policy, proof of Confined Space Entry Procedure and a list of employees trained, a current WSIB Workplace Injury Summary Report and a Clearance Certificate issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board as submitted by Wyndale Paving Company Limited, have been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the Coordinator, Health & Safety. The Certificate of Insurance has been reviewed by the Manager, Finance & Taxation and is deemed acceptable. In conjunction with staff's review of the contractor's previous work experience, check of references submitted and the bonding available on this project, the tender is deemed acceptable. Upon careful examination of all tenders and relevant documents received, the Community Services Department, Engineering Services Division recommends the acceptance of the low bid submitted by Wyndale Paving Company Limited for Tender No. T-10-2012 in the amount of$217,700.83 (HST included) and that the total net project cost of$220,469 be approved. . Attachments: . 1. Location Map 2. Summary Memorandum from Supply & Services dated May 11, 2012 3. By-law to authorize East Shore Community Centre-West Side, Parking Area Reconstruction and Drainage Improvements in the City of Pickering and the issuance of debentures in the amount of$220,000 P epared By: Approved/Endorsed By: (s7 Lam_ 4 �..E..., P arrell Selsky, CET., M III Everett nts PD, CMM Supervisor, Engineering & Capit'Works Directo , Community Services CORP0227-07/01 revised Re 8 ort CS 17-12 June 11, 2012 . E f Subject: Tender No. T-10-2012 Tender for East Shore Community Centre Parking Lot Improvements Page 5 t ♦: 11 era A. F€,Agemacher i is A. Paterson, CMA CSCMP, CPPO, CPPB, C.P.M., CMM III Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Manager, Supply & Services Caryn Kong, CGA Richard W. Hol„orn, P. Eng. Senior Financial Analyst- Div'-ion Head, ngineering Services Capital & Debt Management DS:ds Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council I zet Zdi JI � Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer CORP0227-07/01 revised • ATTACHMENT# C TO REPORT# CS i 1—I2) Citq o, il of_ / l MI Engineering Services Division Attachment for Tender T-10-2012 East Shore Communit Centre CLOUDBE •RY CRT. CC 0\0 , P ( BAYLI STREET (n 0 POPRAD AVENUE ER z Q C " k\Ni C SUBJE AREA TATRA ISANGRO LANE DRIVE EAST S ORE �CS) COMMUNITY CENTRE cn A D W17 O C SENIOR'• COMPLEX J FORDON 0� LI � ��O 0_ j W FUSCHI•< STREET LI CC irkk / 1 _> J cc LN. J J D H O CO _ • �C 0 > PATf✓ORE 0 M P � 1_ z I �� W LANE 2 W z O I Z _J J T� J o < CO 0 LI T Z CE _ O Location Map — East Shore Community Centre Proposed Construction Includes: East Shore Community Centre —The proposed works to include parking lot reconstruction and drainage improvements of the existing lot on the west side of the building to base asphalt including pavement markings. • ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# C S 17-1.2- _�of Citit o� A RECEIVED -;- = MAY 10 2012 PICKS Il V G CITY OF PICKERING Memo ENGINEERING SERVICES To: Richard Holborn May 11, 2012 Division Head, Engineering Services From: Vera A. Felgemacher Manager, Supply & Services Copy: Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works Subject: Tender No T-10-2012 Tender for East Shore Community Centre Parking Lot Improvements - File: F-5400-001 Tenders have been received for the above project. An advertisement was placed in the Daily Commercial News and on the City's website inviting companies to download the tendering documents for the above mentioned tender. Fourteen (14) bidders responded and submitted a tender for this project. A copy of the Record of Tenders Opened and Checked used at the public tender opening is attached. Tenders shall be irrevocable for 60 days after the official closing date and time. Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 13.03 (r) provides checking tendered unit • prices and extensions unit prices shall govern and extensions will be corrected accordingly, which has been done. All deposits other than the low three bidders may be returned to the applicable bidders as provided for by Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 13.03(w). Three (3) bids have been retained for review at this time. Copies of the tenders are attached for your review along with the summary of costs. SUMMARY HST Included Bidder Total Tendered Amount After Calculation Check Wyndale Paving Co. Ltd. $217,700.83 $217,700.83 IPAC Paving Ltd. $218,095.65 $218,095.65 Ashland Paving Ltd. $220,779.40 $220,779.40 Colpac Construction Inc. _ $221,057.95 $221,057.95 Royalcrest Paving $222,347.28 $222,347.28 C. Valley Paving Ltd. $225,929.37 $225,929.38 Mopal Construction Ltd. $237,336.16 $237,336.16 ATTACHMENT#_._22--TOREPOR _ of S Hard Co. Construction Inc. $258,562.19 $258,570.84 8 3 Blackstone Paving and Construction $259,157.59 $259,157.59 • Ltd. Pacific Paving Ltd. $272,362.77 $272,362.77 Bond Paving & Construction Inc. $285,454.95 $288,618.95 Trison Contracting Inc. $315,769.18 $315,769.18 Montgomery MacEwen Contracting . $316,248.81 $316,248.81 Ltd. Automatic rejection — Surety's Corporate Seal is missing from the Bid Bond and Agreement to Bond NEI Construction Corp submitted with the tender. Reference: Purchasing Policy No. PUR 010, Procedure 23.02, Item 10(a); Information to Bidders - Item 9, 12, 25, 26, 27, and Tender Specifications, Item 7. Pursuant to Information to Bidders Item 28, the following will be requested of the low bidder for your review during the evaluation stage of this tender call. Please advise when you wish us to proceed with this task. (a) A copy of the Health and Safety Policy to be used on this project; (b) A copy of the current Workplace Injury Summary Report issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (in lieu of the Workplace Injury Summary Report document, a copy of the current CAD 7, NEER, or MAP reports may be submitted); (c) A copy of the current Clearance Certificate issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board; (d) Proof of compliance with amended Confined Space Entry Regulations (September 30, 2006). Copies of certified Training and Procedures to be used on this project; (e) A list of employees trained in the confined space entry procedure who will be working on this project; (f) The City's certificate of insurance or approved alternative form shall be completed by the bidder's agent, broker or insurer; (g) list of Sub-Contractors in accordance with General Conditions Item 34; (h) Waste Management Plan to be used on this project in accordance with Tendering Specifications Item 18. Please include the following items in your Report to Council: (a) if items (a) through (e) noted above, are acceptable to the Co-ordinator, Health & Safety; (b) if item (f) — Insurance — is acceptable to the Manager, Finance &Taxation; (c) any past work experience with the low bidder Wyndale Paving Co. Ltd.. including work location; (d) without past work experience, if reference information is acceptable; (e) the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged; (f) the budget amount(s) assigned thereto; May 11, 2012 Tender No. T-10-2012 Page 2 Tender for East Shore Community Centre Parking Lot Improvements ATTACH M ENT# TO REPORT# 17—/� 84 of (g) Treasurer's confirmation of funding; (h) related departmental approvals; and (i) related comments specific to the project. Please do not disclose any information to enquiries except you can direct them to the City's website for the unofficial bid results as read out at the public tender opening. Bidders will be advised of the outcome in due course. If you require further information, please feel free to contact me or a member of Supply & Services. VAF/jg Attachments' - • • May 11, 2012 Tender No. T-10-2012 Page 3 Tender for East Shore Community Centre Parking Lot Improvements CS 1 7-'2-- ATTACH M ENT# �• TOREPORT#__ ___...4......of.�_ R N a. O . . a) • a H a z W E 0 . 0 L . E co Q. • 0 2 2 O m Lam . p E CL Q E ' �, , , N. k M Pi, 4�ro Q.) w E» ER E 6r VI c ER E ER 69-Y '� U CO • w a 2 a) U .L-� cV o d O Z 0 " .,, 0 < > oS cm, > 'Q wo 2 � � o \ \. '\ \ \ \-0 ¢N O 0 - > wQ Cl) d w ..., w I 5i' / c CC c or . I / I j i f L a) -0 a) r a) a) C O C • N O O .0 ' 'D 'O C a J C a)U Q O a C c f- m N c -p O ca • 2 c O LU• .,O z O o U a)0) J O V 0) .ca L 0 0 — 0 C U 0 U ca) -p J L OU C '> f C a) o m c cri U U N Q Ecu a a 0 O N f6 0 O f6 0 C-) a' C f6 Ct U Y N ca " 'O (Q fQ 0 CN C U Q > U C .0 C C U C >. C- -2 O as O w ca O T co °- t-= 2 0 z m c� < 2 v a 5 0 = t ATTACkMENT# TO REPORT# /1—I2J Hof . N w 0 N a) nA ms a c O V U cD Q C . co c y O -o c O U . Cl) L N O • co U O CO u 0 c 0 U • IX 0 . 1.1.i . 0 I O I— m 0 0 c a) 0 c . Cu a c • co Q L : (O c? N I -/ p N V n H ,:z..‘. �` CD O o W LL C Q c` 1 L) 11 ATTACHMENT#_..L. TOREPORT# —12J of -?J 87 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. Being a by-law to authorize the East Shore Community Centre-West Side, Parking Lot Reconstruction and Drainage Improvements project in the City of Pickering and the issuance of debentures in the amount of $220,000 Whereas Section 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a lower-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting matters within the spheres of jurisdiction described in that Section; and, Whereas Subsection 401(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a municipality may incur a debt for municipal purposes, whether by borrowing money or in any other way; and, Whereas Subsection 401(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a lower-tier municipality in a regional municipality does not have the power to issue debentures; and, Whereas The Regional Municipality of Durham has the sole authority to issue debentures for the purposes of its lower-tier municipalities including The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the "City"); and, Whereas the Council of the City wishes construction to proceed in respect of the East Shore Community Centre-West Side, Parking Lot Reconstruction and Drainage Improvements project; and, Whereas before authorizing the construction to proceed in respect of East Shore Community Centre-West Side, Parking Lot Reconstruction and Drainage Improvements on the date hereof the Council of the City had the Treasurer update the City's Annual Repayment Limit, the Treasurer calculated the estimated annual amount payable in . respect of such project and determined that such annual amount would not cause the City to exceed the updated Limit and therefore, Ontario Municipal Board approval is not required as per Section 401 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, and the regulations made thereunder; And whereas after determining that Ontario Municipal Board approval is not required, the Council of the City approved report CS 17-12 on the date hereof and awarded Tender T-10-2012 for East Shore Community Centre-West Side, Parking Lot Reconstruction and Drainage Improvements project. ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# S 1 1J)2J BY-LAW NO --�-of �" Page 2 AR Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. That the City proceed with the project referred to as "East Shore Community Centre- West Side, Parking Lot Reconstruction and Improvements"; 2. That the estimated costs of the project in the amount of$220,469 be financed as follows: a) That the sum of$220,000 be financed by the issue of debentures by The Regional Municipality of Durham over a period not to exceed five years at a rate to be determined; b) That the sum of$469 be funded from property taxes; 3. That the funds to repay the principal and interest of the debentures be provided for in the annual Current Budget for the City commencing in 2013 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid. By-law read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 18th day of June, 2012. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk � Q City 4 • Report to Executive Committee PICKERING Report Number: CS 20-12 Date: June 11, 2012 From: Everett Buntsma Director, Community Services Subject: Urban Forest Study - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 20-12 of the Director, Community Services regarding the Urban Forest Study be received; 2. That the City of Pickering Urban Forest Study—Technical Report, be received by Council for information; 3. That City staff be authorized to commence the preparation of a request for proposals, and investigate costs related to consulting services for the preparation of a city-wide Urban Forest Management Plan; 4. That staff be directed to include a request for funding in the 2013 Current Budget for the purpose of retaining a consultant to assist in the preparation of a city-wide Urban Forest Management Plan; and 5. Further that a copy of this report be forwarded to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for their information. Executive Summary: On January 19, 2009, City Council passed Resolution #23/09, to endorse the concept of the development of an Urban Forest Strategy and to retain the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to undertake an Urban Forest Study. The funds for the Study were subsequently passed as part of the 2009 Current Budget. TRCA proceeded to complete the field data collection, iTree-Eco (formerly Urban Forest Effects, or UFORE) analysis, and preparation of the draft report. The total project cost was $78,972.60. - A draft report was issued to all stakeholders on August 4, 2011, for their review prior to • the October 6, 2011 Stakeholders Workshop, where the findings of the study were presented: The attendees provided feedback on the preliminary recommendations derived from the results, and completed a baseline assessment on the current state of the Urban Forest Management in Pickering. The attendees also rated the criteria and performance indicators for Strategic Urban Forest Management in order to determine • ? ortCS2012 June 11, 2012 Subject: Urban Forest Study Page 2 the priorities that could be included in a five year plan. The top three criteria selected were; employing and training adequate staff to implement a city-wide urban forest plan, developing and implementing a comprehensive urban forest management plan and maintaining adequate funding to implement the plan. Urban Forest protection and enhancement will be considered as part of the Downtown Intensification Study as well as the Official Plan Amendment of the Environment and Countryside. As such, a city-wide Urban Forest Management Plan is an essential next step in order to provide direction. A plan also needs to be put in place for the replacement of ash trees that will be lost due to the Emerald Ash Borer. Financial Implications: The cost for the Urban Forest Study was budgeted at $80,000 in,the 2009 Current Budget, with the actual project cost being $78,972.60 (HST included). The next step to complete the Urban Forest Strategy is to prepare a city- wide Urban Forest Management Plan. Funds to retain a consultant to prepare this plan should be considered for inclusion in the 2013 Current Budget. Discussion: On January 12, 2009, Report OES 01-09 regarding the Urban Forest Strategy (Attachment 1) was presented to the Executive Committee. The recommendation of receiving and endorsing the concept of the development of an Urban Forest Strategy and retaining the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to undertake an Urban Forest Study was passed by City Council under Resolution #23/09 on January 19, 2009 (Attachment 2). The funds for the Study were subsequently passed as part of the 2009 Current Budget in the amount of$80,000. TRCA proceeded to complete the field data collection, iTree-Eco analysis and preparation of the draft report. The total project cost was $78,972.60. The City of Pickering retained the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to prepare an Urban Forest Study to assess the structure and function of the urban forest, and to provide management recommendations for enhancing the sustainability of the urban forest and the community as a whole. A random sampling of over 200 plots was taken throughout the study area, south of the Canadian Pacific Railway Line (Belleville Subdivision). The data collected was sent to the USDA Forest Services, where it was inputted into the iTree-Eco model for analysis. A Technical Working Group was formed that included TRCA staff and City staff from Planning & Development, Engineering Services and Municipal Operations. The Working Group reviewed the outcome of the iTree-Eco analysis and provided direction for the Urban Forest Study Report, Stakeholders Workshop and the recommendations that followed. Summary of Study Results The study looked at various aspects of the City of Pickering Urban Forest. Some of the key findings are summarized below: CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CS 20-12 June 11, 2012 9 1 Subject: Urban Forest Study Page 3 Tree Cover and Leaf Area Pickering has a total of 26 percent canopy cover; 20% tree cover and 6% shrub cover. Pickering's 1,672,000 trees provide 68 square kilometers of total leaf area. Tree and Shrub Species Of the 99 different species recorded, 10 of the most prevalent species account for 71% of all the trees with Sugar Maple being the most dominant tree species. All maple tree species account for 34% of the total leaf area. Diversification is recommended to increase resilience of the urban forest to a range of stressors such as pests and diseases. Tree Size As urban trees increase in size, their environmental (e.g. carbon storage and sequestration, air pollution removal), social and economic benefits dramatically increase as well. Approximately 48% of all trees in Pickering fall into the smallest diameter class (2.5-7.6 cm diameter at breast height (dbh) and 75% are less than 15.3 cm dbh. Less than 5% of the trees have a dbh of 38.2 cm or greater, as such, the preservation of our mature trees is very important. Maintenance of younger trees to grow to maturity is equally important as planting new trees. Structural Value of Trees The estimated value of all the trees in Pickering is approximately $627 million. This value only represents an estimate of replacement costs and/or compensation for tree loss. It does not include the ecological or societal value of the forest. Carbon Storage and Sequestration As a tree grows, it removes, or sequesters, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The trees in Pickering are estimated to store 104,000 metric tonnes of carbon, with an associated value of$2.3 million. Annually, they sequester approximately 4,200 million metric tonnes of carbon, with an associated value of$96,000. Air Pollution Removal The urban forest can improve local air quality by intercepting and absorbing airborne pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide. Pickering's urban forest removes 91 metric tonnes of air pollution annually; this ecosystem service is valued at $786,000. Stakeholders Workshop A Stakeholders Workshop was held at the City of Pickering on October 6, 2011 with approximately 30 attendees representing at least 11 agencies and community groups. The findings of the study were presented, feedback was obtained on the preliminary recommendations derived from the results and a baseline assessment was completed on the current state of the Urban Forest Management in Pickering. CORP0227-07/01 revised R9 eoort CS 20-12 June 11, 2012 Subject: Urban Forest Study Page 4 Low scores (meaning requiring action) were given in the following areas: • species suitability and distribution • condition of publicly-owned trees (trees managed intensively) • city-wide management plan • municipality-wide funding • City staffing Good to Optimal scores were given in the following areas: • publically owned natural areas (trees managed extensively, e.g. woodlands, ravine lands, etc.) • natural vegetation • public agency cooperation • canopy cover inventory The attendees rated the Criteria and Performance Indicators for Strategic Urban Forest Management in order to determine the priorities that could be included in a five year plan. This exercise will need to be carried out in more detail in the management plan development. The criteria selected in order of importance are: 1. Employ and train adequate staff to implement a city-wide Urban Forest Management Plan. 2. Develop and implement a comprehensive Urban Forest Management Plan for private and public property. 3. Develop and maintain adequate funding to implement an urban forest management plan. 4. Complete an inventory of the tree resource to direct its management. 5. Ensure that the general public has a good understanding of the role of the urban forest, and an awareness of trees as a community resource. 6. Ensure that all City departments cooperate with common goals and objectives. Recommendations Based on the findings from the iTree-Eco analysis, stakeholders input during the workshop and further discussions with members of the Technical Working Group, a list of 27 recommendations were made for consideration in the development of an Urban Forest Management Plan. They are listed in the City of Pickering Urban Forest Study Report— February 2012, Executive Summary, pages iv to vi. (The Urban Forest Study Technical Report can be accessed on the City's website at www.pickering.ca/en/living/urbanforeststrateqy.asp.) Summary Based on all the recommendations provided, the most logical next step is to retain a consultant to work with City staff and other stakeholders, to prepare a city-wide Urban Forest Management Plan. This plan will provide direction for future staffing and funding requirements to maintain the necessary programs for tree protection, maintenance and CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CS 20-12 June 11, 2012 9 . , Subject: Urban Forest Study Page 5 enhancement, for by-law and policy development, and for further inventories to determine critical areas for replanting to maintain a healthy, high-performing and sustainable urban forest within the City of Pickering. Urban Forest protection and enhancement should be considered as part of the Downtown Intensification Study as well as the Official Plan Amendment of the Environment and Countryside that are currently ongoing. As such, a City-wide Urban Forest Management Plan is essential in order to provide direction. The current threat of the Emerald Ash Borer on the City's ash trees also reminds us of the importance of our boulevard trees and requirement for a more species diverse tree canopy system. Attachments: 1. Report to Executive Committee, OES 01-09, dated January 12, 2009 2. Resolution #23/09, dated January 20, 2009 3. City of Pickering Urban Forest Study—Technical Report, dated February can be accessed on the City's website www.pickering.ca/en/living/urbanforeststrategv.asp Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed B :4 _, J . I .. Arnold Mostert, OALA Everett Buntsma NPD, CMM Coordinator Director, Community Services Landscape & Parks Development AM/am Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Cit Counci ) hia/ lei Lc)!i Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer CORP0227-07/01 revised 9 4 ATTACH MENT#I TOREPORT#CS Qo"IL City al of /3 REPORT TO ' EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: OES 01-09 Date: January 12, 2009 35 From: Everett Buntsma Director, Operations & Emergency Services Subject: - Urban Forest Strategy - File: A-1440 . Recommendation: . 1. That Report OES 01-09 of the Director, Operations & Emergency Services be received; 2. That Council endorse the concept of the development of an Urban Forest Strategy for the City of Pickering; 3. That Council receive and endorse in principle the proposal from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to undertake the Urban Forest Study and that staff be directed to include funding for this study in its 2009 budget submission for Council's consideration; 4. That should budget approval be granted in the 2009 budget, notwithstanding the requirements of the City's Purchasing Policy, TRCA be retained to undertake the Urban Forest Study; and 5. . That a copy of this report be forwarded to the TRCA for their information. Executive Summary: An Urban Forest Strategy is a comprehensive document that establishes the guiding principles and policies for the management and enhancement of the City's urban forest and tree canopy. The strategy provides clear objectives, measureable outcomes and makes recommendations to existing policies and practices to sustain and enhance tree cover as an essential natural resource. On March 25, 2008, the City of Pickering Council passed a Notice of Motion respecting an Urban Forest Strategy under Resolution #54/08. The resolution required that staff report back to Council with respect to the development of a terms of reference for an Urban Forest Strategy after consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority; that staff investigate potential funding partners to assist in the study; and that staff identify potential community stewardship partners for the program. V ' ATTACHMENT# ! wy TOREPORT#CS 2-0 9 5 Report OES 01-09 — -01 January 12, 2009 Subject: Urban Forest Strategy Page 2 i Subsequent meetings and discussions between staff and the TRCA initiated the preparation of a proposal from the TRCA to assist in undertaking an Urban Forest Study, the first step in preparing an Urban Forest Strategy. Financial Implications: The proposed estimate from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to perform the Urban Forest Study is $71,097.00 (including a 10% contingency) subject to Council's direction. This cost will be considered under the 2009 budget with the potential assistance of funding from outside sources. Sustainability Implications: An Urban Forest Strategy is a long range initiative towards climate change adaptation. Sustaining and enhancing the City of Pickering's urban forest and tree canopy as part of a green infrastructure will promote benefits such as; • improved air quality • improved water quality • reduced energy costs • greenhouse gas reduction • mitigation of"heat island effect" from urban intensification • community capacity building • wildlife habitat • invasive species management • increase of biodiversity to lessen impact of disease and insect infestation Background: An Urban Forest Strategy is a long term planning tool that sets vision, establishes policy and guides actions An Urban Forest Strategy is a tool that allows municipalities'to actively plan for a sustainable urban forest. An Urban Forest Strategy is different from a tree planting program because it considers urban forests as part of a planning process and considers the long term maintenance and health of the urban forest. Developing a strategy for sustaining and enhancing the urban forest requires a practical understanding of the status of the current urban forest. This includes the number, location and density of trees, species, health, age, etc, and the development of proper policies and techniques for the planting and maintenance of urban trees. An Urban Forest Strategy can be designed to integrate with the sustainability objectives of a municipality and goes far beyond simply assessing the current tree canopy cover. The foundation of a urban forest strategy is an understanding of what you have now and a vision for what you want it to be 10, 25, and 50 years in the future. CORP0227-07101 revised ATTACK-hMENT#_ .r_IW TO REPORT# C S aO -►- Report OES 01-09 ®®t January 12, 2009 Subject: Urban Forest Strategy Page 3 The first step in,the Strategy is undertaking an Urban Forest Study The first step required to develop the Urban Forest Strategy is to perform a study to determine the existing conditions of Pickering's urban forest. A commonly used model is the Urban Forests Effects (UFORE) analysis, developed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Services. A random sampling of approximately 200 sites, each 0.04 hectares in area, are taken throughout the study area. In doing so, approximately 30 plots for each land use (Industrial, commercial, residential, parkland etc.) are studied. Each tree over 2.5 cm (1") in caliper is accounted for, with its species, size and health being catalogued. Shrub cover may be considered as well. The data collected is sent to the USDA Forest Services, where they input the data into a software program for analysis. The results and recommendations provided from the analysis will assist the City in creating management goals. Prior to sending the data collected for analysis, the City's goals and objectives for the Strategy need to be determined so that they can be addressed in the recommendations. How does the City want to benefit from its urban forest in terms of quality of life? For example, the focus could be on mitigating climate change and urban heat island effects, improving air quality, restoring natural aesthetics, reducing flooding or decreasing community energy use. Different tree species provide different benefits; therefore, defining a livable City of Pickering will determine the kind of urban forest that the City will require. Data analysis can be conducted for the study area as a whole or it can be "stratified" by clumping it into various categories such as by land use or by neighbourhood. Staff will need to determine the best format for the data analysis, so that the results and recommendations will suit our needs in developing long term strategies and policies for our urban forest. On March 25, 2008, Andrea Dube of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority made a presentation regarding the Urban Forest Strategy to the City of Pickering Council. This was followed by the passing of a Notice of Motion for an Urban Forest Strategy under Resolution #54/08. The resolution required that staff report back to Council with respect to the development of a terms of reference for an Urban Forest Strategy after consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority; that staff investigate potential funding partners to assist in the study; and that staff identify potential community stewardship partners for the program. Councillor Littley and several staff attended a UFORE Project Design Forum hosted by the TRCA on April 8, 2008, in order to become more informed on the process and requirements of an Urban Forest Strategy. Among the presenters at the Forum were Dr. David Nowak, Project Leader for the USDA Forest Service and Andy Kenney and Meaghan Eastwood from the University of Toronto who spoke of the process and their experiences in preparing an Urban Forest Strategy for Kelowna, B.C. The Forum was attended by representatives from the surrounding municipalities including Ajax, Brampton, Caledon, London, Markham, Mississauga, Peel, Pickering, Toronto, CORP0227-07/01 revised ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# C -12 , Report OES 01-09 of /3 January 12, 2009 Subject: Urban Forest Strategy Page 4 Vaughan and York. All the municipalities recognized the need for and indicated interest in moving forward with preparing an Urban Forest Strategy. We have been advised that to date the City of Toronto, City of London, Town of Ajax and Region of Peel have proceeded and completed the field component of their studies and York Region (for Markham and Vaughan) have plans to complete their study in 2009. TRCA has provided a proposal to the City to undertake the Urban Forest Study Subsequent to the passing of the Resolution, City of Pickering staff have kept in contact with Town of Ajax staff to follow their progress, to determine the most appropriate direction for proceeding with the study and to be informed of its associated costs. The Town of Ajax issued a request for proposal for the Urban Forest Study and received two quotes that came in substantially over their budget. TRCA responded to their needs and have assisted them by performing the study for an estimated cost of approximately $65,000, significantly less that the quotes received. In light of this, and as no funds have yet been dedicated for this program, a terms of reference to request for proposals from consultants was not prepared. The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) was consulted and staff advised that until such time as CLOCA receives interest from its local municipalities and have suitable forestry staff, they will not be promoting the program. In effort to advance this program, and in light of a number of development applications currently under review in the City that involve tree removal compensation, a meeting with Pickering and TRCA staff was held on October 22, 2008. Discussions surrounded the fact that the City needs to develop policies to address tree protection and removal compensation, and establish more stringent guidelines for landscaping to enhance our urban forest. With the expansion of development into Central Pickering and anticipated intensification in South Pickering (including our downtown), this issue will become critical. These policies and guidelines would become part of the final Urban Forest Strategy. It was agreed that TRCA would provide a proposal to the City to assist in the Urban Forest Study, similar to what they are currently doing for the Town of Ajax and the Region of Peel. The TRCA proposal for the Urban Forest Study, dated November 5; 2008, proposes a study area of the existing urban and future growth areas, including the Seaton Community, but not the rural areas. As per the recommendations of the USDA, 200 sample plots are proposed for the Pickering study taken using the "randomized grid" method across the study area. This is recommended as it lends itself to monitor future change within the study area and allows for post-stratification: the organization and comparison of data collected over multiple years. The TRCA propose to begin the study in the spring 2009, with the field data collection, in-office data compilation and inputting proceeding during the summer months, data analysis and interpretation proceeding in the fall, with the final Study Report being complete in early 2010. The final Urban Forest Study report will be technical in nature, presenting and interpreting the results of the UFORE analysis. It will provide recommendations for CORP0227-07/01 revised t! %? ATTACHMENT# L _._.. TO REPORT# CS c20 .S of Report OES 01-09 January 12, 2009 Subject: Urban Forest Strategy Page 5 ') • achieving the desired urban forest goals and objectives, more specifically, the benefits and services currently being provided by the urban forest (air pollution removal, household energy savings etc.) as well as the various structural elements of the forest (species composition, age-class distribution etc.). Recommendations will be made for future management directions such as increasing the number of large stature trees or increasing species diversification in certain land use zones or neighborhoods. This information will be used to develop planning policies and management strategies for our urban forest. The projected budget estimate from the TRCA to cover staff time, vehicle allowance, data analysis and report preparation is $64,847. With a 10% contingency allowance, the estimated cost is $71,097. It is recommended that this cost be considered by Council in the 2009 budget. The City of Pickering's purchasing policy requires that three formal written quotes be required for goods and services with the proposed dollar value. Based on the information received from the Town of Ajax and TRCA's experience and expertise, staff request for Council's approval to proceed with TRCA and not seek additional quotes. The Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer has been consulted with regards to this matter and is in agreement with recommendation number 4. Potential Funding. Partnerships have been explored Council's Resolution required investigation into potential funding partners and the identification of potential community stewardship partners. Members from the business and development community in the City of Pickering have been contacted. Although interest has been shown regarding this matter, no commitments have been made. The feeling is that until a commitment is made by Council to proceed with the study, funding partners will not step forward. Also more interest has been indicated for providing funding for specific tree planting programs than for a study. Environmental Stewardship Pickering (ESP) has accepted the challenge to assist in the implementation of an Urban Forest Strategy. ESP is an initiative to expand the work of the successful Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project, to cover the entire City of Pickering. In June of 2008, the City of Pickering, Ontario Power Generation and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority invited a wide range of environmental and other community organizations to a forum to see if there was any interest in joining forces. Attendees to the forum included: Indo-Canadian Cultural Association of Durham, Hydro One, Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club, Dunbarton High School, Pickering Rod and Gun Club, Canadian Baha'i Business Forum, Durham Environmental Advisory Committee, Friends of Altona Forest, Friends of the Rouge, Rouge/Duffins Greenspace Coalition, Pickering Naturalists, South Pickering Seniors Association and Pickering Horticultural Society. The Urban Forest Strategy was presented to the organizations at that time and all agreed that it would be a worthwhile program to participate in. CORPO227-07!01 revised • ATTACHMENT#L.` TOREPORT# cs ao-a. 99 Report OES 01-09of_l� January 12, 2009 Subject: Urban Forest Strategy Page 6 .T As an item of urgency with regards to the health and protection of our current urban forest, an announcement was made on December 8, 2008; that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) have confirmed the presence of the Emerald Ash Borer in the City of Pickering. The Emerald Ash Borer is an invasive beetle that is highly destructive to ash trees. Approximately 20% of the street trees in the City of Pickering are ash trees. The Urban Forest Study can identify the impact of the loss of these trees and provide recommendations to mitigate this problem. Attachments: 1. City of Pickering Urban Forest Study Outline (Including Projected Costs and Timelines for a UFORE Analysis), dated November 5, 2008, Prepared by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Prepared By: Approved/Endored,,By: • r Arnold lvlostert Everett Buntsma'` Coordinator, Directory Landscape & Parks Development Operations & Emergency Services its Richfard W. H. born, P. Eng. Djsion Head, Municipal Property & Engineering (. AM:ds Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering • y . -- cil 44 o as J. i n, ' I MR, CM Chief Admi istr- ' e Officer CORP0227-07/01 revised ATTACHMENT TOREPPORT#, C S . 20-12_ ei__s 3 1 0 �,� �., TO REPORT o!-O ' City of Pickering Urban Forest Study Outline (Including Projected Costs and Timelines for a UFORE Analysis) November 5, 2008 Prepared for: City of Pickering Prepared by: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ATTACHMENT# / TO REPORT#_4.5_ 010—IA., 5Y Vf / BACKGROUND The outline that follows for an urban forest study(Program component 2) was developed in follow up to a meeting on Wednesday, October 22, 2008,between representatives of City of Pickering and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the integration of urban forest information into sustainable community planning as well as the basic considerations surrounding the City conducting an urban forest study. A pressing issue was the need for immediate, interim measures for dealing with existing planning files that need direction on tree protection and management. It was determined that initially the City's.Urban Forest Program would have three components, as follow: I. Component 1: research into examples of tree protection and policy in other municipalities, e.g. stringent guidelines used in older,more treed neighbourhoods, to assist with current planning files; 2. Component 2: design and carry out an urban forest study, using UFORE,and write recommendations to assist the City in further urban forest strategy development; and, 3. Component 3: develop a guidance document for integrating recommendations from components 1 and 2 into community planning and development review, to assist with Official Plan review. All three components will likely be started simultaneously to meet the needs and timelines of the various users. There was discussion about the need for inter-department and inter-agency collaboration and communication,which should include the Region's Health Department. The City would undertake and lead components 1 and 3. TRCA was asked to prepare a basic outline of an urban forest study to fulfill component 2. That outline follows. COMPONENT.2—URBAN FOREST STUDY(to be led by TRCA) Context . The City of Pickering's green infrastructure—its street trees, hedgerows, forests,wetlands and rich species diversity—from which the City derives ecosystem services,can play a large part in attaining and sustaining a livable City of Pickering. The Urban Forest Study can provide a progressive look at how trees could be a more essential part of urban community design in the City of Pickering. The Urban Forest Study requires a well thought out context if it is to be effective in informing policy, development negotiation and urban design. First, it requires that the implementers (audiences)—those who would take action to implement any ensuing urban forest management • strategies—be identified and involved early on. Second, the Study requires that the implementers have a reasonable definition of what is a livable City of Pickering, including how the City wants to benefit from its urban forest in terms of quality of life—e.g. human health and social wellbeing. Different tree species provide.different benefits; therefore, defining a livable City of Pickering will determine the kind of urban forest that the City will require. The accent may be on mitigating climate change and urban heat island effects, improving air quality, restoring natural aesthetics,reducing flooding or decreasing community energy use. 2 ATTACHMENT# TOREPORT# , j�� of_t_ Those objectives need to be determined prior to designing the urban forest Study. The ensuing Pickering Urban Forest Program objectives could form the basis for the City's Terms of Reference for the Study. The purpose of the Study would be to determine how the current urban forest is contributing to achieving the livable Pickering and then to inform strategies on required restoration, enhancement and maintenance of the urban forest. The TRCA has been managing the Urban Forest Studies for the Region of Peel and the Town of Ajax as well as facilitating the communication and collaboration between project managers and stakeholders of urban forest studies within and beyond the TRCA's nine watersheds. Drawing from that experience in study design, data collection and strategy development, TRCA can assist the City in the development of their own Study Terms of Reference. The following is a brief outline of a recommended project description for Component 2, the City's Urban Forest Study, including a corresponding projected budget and work plan. Proposed Study Design Selected Model The Study Terms of Reference will need to include the methodology to be used to collect information on the structure of the urban forest and the models used to relate the structure to function(ecosystem services). A commonly used model is the Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) analysis, which was developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA), Forest Service, and which has been used in cities worldwide. The UFORE model uses field data collected from sample plots throughout a study area,together with local hourly meteorological and air` pollution-concentration measurements,to provide a detailed assessment of the structure and function of the urban.forest. Other municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area, including Oakville, Toronto,Peel and Ajax have used or are using UFORE as a component of their urban forest studies. UFORE will facilitate a better understanding of the role of the City's urban forest, will assist in the development of an urban forest strategy and will establish a baseline for future evaluations. Study Boundaries In previous UFORE analyses conducted by the TRCA study boundaries were delineated by municipal boundaries in order to provide a representative sample. The exception was the Town of Caledon, for which only the urban settlement areas were sampled. The steep urban-rural gradient that occurs within the municipality of Pickering may also warrant that the analysis includes the existing urban and future growth areas, including the Seaton Community,but not the rural areas, e.g. Ward 3 and the Duffins Rouge Agriculture Preserve. Sampling Methodology The UFORE analysis utilizes data (species composition,tree health and dimensions, degree of imperviousness,etc) collected in the field from sample plots;the data are then statistically extrapolated to estimate the condition (totals and standard errors)of the entire study area. In 2008, TRCA has used a"randomized grid"method to distribute the sample plots across study 3 ATTACHMENT#!TOREP• • '..Js A6.,19 !B of.__l__ _ocsot-oy �,.. . 1 r ,.!. • areas. A grid of equal size cells is overlaid across the entire study area and plots a placed randomly within each grid cell. The USDA recommends the randomized grid method as it lends itself to monitor future change within the study area and allows for post-stratification (explained below). Study Area Stratification The data collection and analysis can be conducted for the study area as a whole but they can also be conducted in more detail by clumping data into various categories; for example,by land use type or by municipal ward. This is called the"stratification" of data(and the land uses are the"strata"). Stratifying the study area into smaller units can aid in understanding variations in the structure of the urban forest according to land use type(e.g. residential, commercial, etc.) or potentially by neighbourhoods. • The timing of stratification is important. With pre-stratification, the study area is divided into smaller units prior to plot distribution, which focuses the data collection on a predetermined study scope. The disadvantage of pre-stratification is that a) the land use, or strata, may change over time, making future re-evaluation potentially incomparable, and b)the data collected according to a preset scope and purpose may not be relevant if the study scope and purpose shifts. The USDA recommends post-stratification as it offers the most flexibility for data organization and comparison of data collected over multiple years. The number of strata used in an analysis is typically between 5 and 10 for an analysis of 200 plots. All analyses of data collected in 2008 urban forest studies in the GTA (Toronto, Peel and Ajax) will be post-stratified by land use categories. The TRCA has created a standardized set of categories (strata), derived from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation(MPAC) codes,to be used in analyses for the Region of Peel and the Town of Ajax. The City of Toronto categories are similar but adapted to their unique management needs in a more concentrated urban setting. It is recommended that the City of Pickering post-stratify using the categories used in Peel and Ajax in order to ensure consistency. Plot Size and Number In order to derive valid results from the UFORE analysis an appropriate number of sample plots must be selected. Increasing the number of plots will lead to increased certainty in the results, but it will also increase the time and cost of data collection. As a general.rule,200 (0.04 hectare) sample plots will yield a standard error of approximately 10% for an estimate for an entire city I . In accordance with the recommendations of the USDA, 200 sample plots have been used in the analyses for Mississauga, Brampton, and Ajax. The Township of Caledon elected to use 35 plots in Caledon East and 50 plots in Bolton. According to the USDA, a minimum of 30 plots is required to provide meaningful results in a small study area such as Caledon East. The Township and the USDA agreed that the aforementioned plot numbers would provide a suitable level of accuracy within a desired budget. The City of Toronto has increased the USDA Forest Service(2007). I-tree Software Suite v1.2: User's Manual. 4 ATTACHMENT# TOREPORT# US 420'I4PN It of L3 104 , ocs01-1y 45 number of sample plots from the original 350 to 412 in order to obtain more detailed results for their land use categories. Given the size of the study area as well as the level of detail needed, it is recommended that the City of Pickering use a total of 200 sample plots. A suitable plot size for the City's analysis is 0.04 hectares (with an 11.3 meter radius), which is consistent with all 2008 urban forest studies conducted in the GTA. Distribution of Tasks A breakdown of required tasks for the Component 2 Urban Forest Study is provided in Table 1 that includes a suggested distribution of tasks between the City and TRCA. This task list is derived from previous studies and can be adapted to suit the needs of the City of Pickering. Study Timelines Table 2 provides a work plan for the UFORE analysis. Although several of the project deliverables and milestones are flexible, the field data must be collected during the summer • leaf-on period in order to capture accurate results. Consequently,tasks relating to project setup, including landowner contact and equipment acquisition, must be completed within the timelines given. Proposed Budget A working budget for the completion of a UFORE analysis is provided in Table 3. This budget is derived from previous studies and should be used only as a guide in budget development. In the event that additional analyses(UFORE Hydro, aerial canopy cover analysis, etc.) are requested by the City the budget can be adapted to reflect additional expenses. Project Contacts Project Manager: Lionel Normand lnonnand @trca.on.ca, (416) 6616600 extension 5327 Urban Forestry Technician: Meaghan Eastwood meastwood @trca.on.ca, (416)6616600 extension 5734 5 ATTACHMENT#_,_L_.. TOREPORT# Cs offs -0 105 le 7 Table 1: Proposed Task List STUDY TASK` REQUIRED ACTION PICKERING TRCA' -Project Oversight Project direction Project management/advisory Provide TRCA with study area shape Submit study area to USDA for plot Set-up and Plot Selection file •generation Landowner Contact TBD TBD Staffing None Hire,train and supervise field crew Resources Provide equipment(not required) Rent vehicles and purchase all equipment Undertake and supervise all field data Field Data Collection None collection,liaise with landowners Data Input None Undertake and supervise data input Data Transfer None Undertake data transfer to USDA Communication As needed Provide regular progress reports • Coordinate data analysis and Analysis and Interpretation None interpretation Reporting Editing Study report writing and presentations Table 2: Proposed Work Plan TASK lEAR J F. M A ';M J _-'J • A S 0 N D .Milestone`` 2009 Meeting/Discussions with Pickering Staff 1 Develop Pickering-TRCA agreement 2 Study design,plot layout Landowner contact Vehicles and equipment,hire/train field crew Field data collection,quality check 1n-office data compilation Data input,data cleaning Initiate Report-Draft Structure - Progress Report to Pickering Staff 3 Data analysis and interpretation Report Writing Draft I Study Report 4 Meeting with Pickering Staff 5 2010 j Finalize Study Report _ ; 6 Assist Pickering in implementation • • 6 ATTACHMENT#_1_.e TOREPORT# Ce- AO-1.)- of 1 ' / . Oe 5 01-4/ Table 3: Projected.Budget PICKERING.'URBAN sFOREST STUDY PROJECTED BUDGE T UFORE Project Estimates with Based on 200 Plot Sample Specifics Estimates 10%Contigency Wages Project Manager(project oversight,budget, meetings,deliverables) 1 month $6,600 $7,260 Wages-Urban Forestry Technician(Field Program set up and admin,crew supervision,data management,analysis interpretation,draft study report writing) 6 months $11,667 _ $12,834 Project Set up(payment to USDA) I project $1,731 $1,731 Training Field Crews-2.5 days 1 session $395 $395 Wages-Crew Leader($160/day) 70 person days $11,200 $12,320 Wages- Field Assistant($136/day) • 70 person days $9,520 _ $10,472 Vehicle-rental small car($800/mth)' I for 3 months $2,400 $2,640 Vehicle-travel(100 km/day at$0.10/km) 70 days _ $700 $770 Vehicle-gasoline(16 km/liter at$1.40/I) 7000 km $625 $688 Other-equipment,cell phone $530 $583 Data analysis(USDA) basic analysis $3,450 $3,795 Finalization of report,meetings 2 months _ $10,000 $11,000 SUBTOTAL(1) $58,818 $64,487 Project Administration-5% _ $2,941 _ $3,224 _SUBTOTAL(2) 561,759 567,712 GST-5% $3,088 _ $3,386 TOTAL ESTIMATE COSTS $64,847 $71,097 • 7 ATTACHMENT# TOREPORT# aS 30 -12/ - of Z 107 CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT CLERKS DIVISION DIRECTIVE MEMORANDUM January 20, 2009 To: Everett Buntsma, Director, Operations & Emergency Services From: Debi A. Wilcox City Clerk Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on January 19, 2009 Director, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 01-09 Urban Forest Strategy COUNCIL DECISION RESOLUTION # 23/09 1. That Report OES 01-09 of the Director, Operations & Emergency Services be received; 2. That Council endorse the concept of the development of an Urban Forest Strategy for the City of Pickering; 3. That Council receive and endorse in principle the proposal from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to undertake the Urban Forest Study and that staff be directed to include funding for this study in its 2009 budget submission for Council's consideration; 4. That should budget approval be granted in the 2009 budget, notwithstanding the requirements ofthe City's Purchasing Policy, TRCA be retained to undertake the Urban Forest Study; and 5. That a copy of Report OES 01-09, be forwarded to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for their information. Please take any action deemed necessary. ATTACHMENT#___°Z TO REPORT# 20 -/ Subject: Directive Memorandum -- of Page 2 Report OES 01-09 January 20, 2009 108 Debi Wilcox If r Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer city 00 A Report to Executive Committee PI KERING Report Number: CS 21-12 Date: June 11., 2012 109 From: Everett Buntsma Director, Community Services Subject: Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Environmental Assessment - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 21-12 of the Director, Community Services, regarding the Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Environmental Assessment be received; 2. That the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be authorized to assume a leadership role in partnership with the City of Pickering to undertake the project; 3. That the proposal from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for services related to the Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Environmental Assessment, in a gross amount of$532,334 and a net project cost of$479,383 including net HST, disbursements, and a 15% contingency be approved; 4. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to fund the above mentioned project through a transfer from: a) the Development Charges Reserve Fund — Stormwater in the amount of $57,526; b) the DC-City's Share Reserve in the amount of$421,857; 5. That a report be presented to Council upon completion of the Class Environmental Assessment; and 6. Further that appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to enter into any agreements to give effect hereto. Executive Summary: The Frenchman's Bay Master Plan (Master Plan) outlined a series of recommendations and projects to be completed by the City for the purposes of addressing public safety issues and degraded water quality within Frenchman's Bay and it's tributary watersheds. The Master Plan proposed a phased approach for dealing with key priority sites over the first 5 years of the implementation of the plan. One of the key projects identified for completion within Phase 1 of the Master Plan is the undertaking of the Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Environmental Assessment (Amberlea Creek EA). The purpose of the Amberlea Creek EA is to provide a Report CS 21-12 June 11, 2012 Subject: Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Environmental Assessment Page 2 comprehensive assessment of the watershed to identify the causes of existing erosion, and provide a series of recommendations to address the issue, with due consideration to risk of public safety. The 2010 Capital Budget provided funds for the completion of the Amberlea Creek EA, as well as the detailed design, and construction phases of the project. Subsequent to funding approval, City staff requested a proposal from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to undertake the work. TRCA offers the use of the Conservation Ontario's Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (CAEA), which fulfills the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Municipal Class EA) process, but is specific to erosion control projects, which can only be completed by a Conservation Authority. In addition, TRCA has over 35 years of experience in the planning and construction of erosion and slope stabilization projects. Staff are of the opinion that retaining TRCA to complete this project is covered under the Purchasing Policy as a sole source purchase in accordance with Section 09.04 (d) which involves goods and services for which there is no reasonable substitute or competitive product, and Section 09.04 (e) the supply of which is controlled by a vendor with a monopoly. A CAEA can only be undertaken by a Conservation Authority, which is TRCA in this jurisdiction. In accordance with Section 09.09 of the City's Purchasing Policy, a sole source purchase exceeding $125,000 is subject to Council approval. It is therefore recommended that the City retain the services of TRCA to complete the Amberlea Creek EA, being the only body authorized to undertake this type of EA. Financial Implications: 1. Estimated Project Costing Summary-Environmental Assessment Estimated Cost $409,645 Contingency (15%) 61,447 Total 471,092 HST (13%) 61,242 Total Gross Project Cost 532,334 HST Rebate (11.24%) (52,951) Total Net Project Cost to City $479,383 CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CS 21-12 June 11, 2012 Subject: Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Environmental Assessment Page 3 1 1, 1 2. Approved Source of Funds 2010 External Subdivision Works Capital Budget Location Project Source of Funds Budget Required Code Amberlea Creek Erosion Control 5321.1005 DC Funded Debt— $2,402,400 $0 10 year Development Charges Reserve 327,600 57,526 Fund DC-City's Share 0 421,857 Reserve Total Funds Required $2,730,000 $479,383 The 2010 Development Projects (DC Funded) Capital Budget included $2,730,000 for the Amberlea Creek EA, as well as the detailed design, and construction phases of the project. At this time we are proceeding with the environmental assessment component, which is expected to continue into fall 2013. This consulting services assignment, based on TRCA's letter proposal, totalling $479,383 including net HST, disbursements, and a 15% contingency falls within the budget approval. The remainder of the funds will be available for the implementation of the preferred alternatives, which will be identified in the Amberlea Creek EA. The funding allocation for the project was approved at 12% Development Charges Reserve Fund and 88% DC Funded Debt— 10 year. The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer is recommending a change in the financing for this portion of the project. At the time of passing the 2010 Capital Budget the City had not accumulated sufficient funds in the DC-City's Share Reserve for funding. Since that time, the City has accumulated approximately $3.2 million in this Reserve, therefore, debt financing will not be required. Recommendation 4 provides the authority for the Treasurer to transfer City's share from the DC-City's Share Reserve and the Development Charges Reserve Fund in the amount not to exceed $479,383 as required to finance this project. However, it is possible that the City's share of the balance of this project, being the actual design and construction, will have to be debt financed. CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CS 21-12 June 11, 2012 Subject: Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Environmental Assessment Page 4 112 Discussion: Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan The Master Plan, approved at the regular Council meeting of April 19, 2010, outlined a series of projects to be implemented over a 25 year time frame. The Master Plan was intended to be used as a guide for the City for the purpose of addressing public safety concerns related to flooding, erosion, and the degraded water quality within Frenchman's Bay and it's tributary watersheds. The Master Plan had outlined a phased approach for addressing these concerns, namely Phase 1 (5 year plan), and Phase 2 (5 to 25 year plan). The Master Plan addressed Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process thereby requiring more detailed investigations at the project-specific level in order to fulfill the outstanding requirements for the specific Schedule B and C projects identified in the Master Plan. Due to the scale of the work involved with addressing the erosion issues along Amberlea Creek, the Master Plan had identified these works as a Schedule C project. Schedule C projects need to fulfill Phases 3 and 4 prior to filing an Environmental Study Report (ESR) for public review, in order to ensure compliance with the Province of Ontario's Environmental Assessment Act. The Master Plan provided a number of recommendations to address the erosion issues experienced along the main valley of Amberlea Creek, all of which were specific to the watershed south of Bayly Street. The recommendations provided in the Master Plan will be expanded to include a comprehensive assessment of all open channel areas within the watershed, generally located from Sheppard Avenue south to the creek outlet at Frenchman's Bay. Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Environmental Assessment In the 2010 Capital Budget, funds in the amount of$2,730,000 were approved to undertake the Amberlea Creek EA, complete detailed design, obtain approvals, and construction of the preferred alternative. Subsequent to approval, City staff requested a proposal from TRCA to undertake the work (Attachment 1). Proposal and Work Plan from TRCA A letter proposal and work plan was received from TRCA dated May 22, 2012 (Attachment 2) that detailed how the assignment would be undertaken at a cost of$532,334, including HST, disbursements, and a 15% Contingency, for a total net cost to the City in the amount of$479,383. CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CS 21-12 June 11, 2012 Subject: Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Environmental Assessment Page 5 113 Through the proposal process, TRCA brought Conservation Ontario's Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (CAEA) process to the attention of City staff. The CAEA process, which fulfills all the requirements of the Municipal Class EA process, are specific to flood and erosion control projects. The CAEA is intended to provided Conservation Authorities (CA's) a streamlined approach and sets out the specific technical requirements for completing erosion control projects. One key difference between the CAEA process, and the Municipal Class EA process, is the mandatory requirement for a Community Liaison Committee, which will aide in overseeing the community engagement component of the EA, which is consistent with the City of Pickering's Corporate Priorities. A CAEA can only be completed by a Conservation Authority, such as TRCA. In addition to the benefits of using the CAEA process, a number of approvals will be required from the Department of Oceans and Fisheries (DFO), Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), Ministry of Transportation (MTO), and the TRCA. Through past experience on similar projects, TRCA has gained the experience and knowledge required for obtaining approvals from the various regulatory agencies in a timely manner which was evidenced by the work that TRCA has completed for the City to date, such as the Frenchman's Bay Harbour Entrance Environmental Assessment, and through their participation on the Master Plan. Based on the discussion above, staff are of the opinion that the project would be considered a sole source in accordance with the City's Purchasing Policy Section 09.04 (d) for the purchase involves goods and services for which there is no reasonable substitute or competitive product and under Section 09.04 (e) the supply of which is controlled by a vendor with a monopoly, given that a CAEA can only be undertaken by a Conservation Authority, which is TRCA in this jurisdiction. Furthermore, in accordance with Section 09.09, a single source or sole source purchase exceeding $125,000 is subject to Council approval. It is recommended that the City retain the services of TRCA to complete the Amberlea Creek EA, being the only body authorized to undertake this type of EA. Attachments: 1. City's Request for Proposal for Consulting Services, dated November 19, 2010 2. Letter Proposal from TRCA dated May 22, 2012 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: ,10111/#01r Nick Lorrain Evere Buntsma, NPD, CMM Coordinator, Water Resources Director, Community Services CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CS 21-12 June 11, 2012 Subject: Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Environmental Assessment Page 6 • 114 0 arilee Gadzovski, M.Sc.(Eng.), P.Eng. Gillis A. Paterson, C.M.A Senior Water Resources & Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Environmental Engineer .•i. Rich- d Holbor /P. Eng. - Divi ion Head, Engineering Services MG:nI Attachments Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Cit Council • � / r 2-7, 2012. Tony Preve•el, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer CORP0227-07/01 revised C[f!f O� _- Pickering Civic Complex �TTA( MENT# _/ TOREPORT# _ cl'�� One The Esplanade ,r Pickering,Ontario �I Of,_2 Canada L1V 6K7 - � i Direct Access 905.420.4660 � '� � Free F Toll F 1.866.683.2760 I'ICKERING Toll reepickering.com OPERATIONS&EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT r. Engineering Services Division 1 1 5 Division 905.420.4630 Fax 905.420.4650 engser @cityofpickering.com November 19, 2010 • Nick Saccone Director, Restoration. Services Boyd Field Centre Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 9755 Canada Company Ave. Woodbridge, ON M3N 1S4 Subject: Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Environmental Assessment Project Filer O: D-8100-001-10 As discussed recently with Laura Stephenson of your office, the City of Pickering is requesting a proposal for services with respect to the Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Environmental Assessment (EA) Project. As TRCA has been the lead agency in successfully completing several erosion control projects for other GTA municipalities over the last number of years, the City of Pickering believes there is a benefit by having TRCA complete this project, which is anticipated to , be a Schedule C project, as defined by the Class EA process. The subject site, as shown in Figure 1, is essentially all the open water courses of Amberlea Creek from the CN railway tracks north of Sheppard Ave to the outlet at Frenchman's Bay, with the major erosion issues previously identified south of Bayly Street. The project was identified within Phase.1 (5 Year Plan) of the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan (FBSWMMP). However, during the FBSWMMP process TRCA ecology staff noted concern with this project as the preferred alternative. of hardening the creek would most likely mean removal of the heavily vegetated valley that has been designated an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) in order to facilitate an access road. As mitigation for the loss of the ESA was not built into the selection of the preferred alternative there was concern that this was selected as the most viable option. It was agreed that in order to move forward with approval of the Master Plan document as a whole, the City of Pickering would retook at all the viable alternatives when the Schedule C EA for the Amberlea Creek Erosion works commenced. Amberlea Erosion Control Project November 19, 2010 1 1 6 ATTACHMENT 1. _._ ROREPORT# L'S a.I-l2. Page 2 of Therefore, as stated above this project is envisioned to proceed as a Schedule C project, as defined in the Class EA process, and as such will require Phase 1 through Phase 4 be completed. The City would also like to complete part of Phase 5, which would involve completion of the detailed design and obtaining the necessary approvals from the required agencies, and would request that part of the assignment be detailed separately: If the TRCA is interested in pursuing this project, in a lead role capacity please provide a detailed proposal including scope, cost and schedule by December 17, 2010, for the City to consider. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 905.420.4660 ext. 2067. Yours truly, M arilee Gadzovski, M.Sc.(Eng.), P.Eng: Senior Water Resources & Environmental.Engineer MG:mg Attachment Co Laura ura Stephenson; Manager, Project Management Office, TRCA Chief Administrative Officer Director, Operations & Emergency Services Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer • Division Head, Engineering Services „,:\ . `1c.`_ r`r6_ .r _.,_/ o REPORT#. _p?Hz- __...1__c; .3._-,m. , cn 1 1 '7 . 11.1 „ � z m ��� m1 tG( r,iI w CJ , MI is ,I �' w Z � 1 1 ' i1g 113r., IN a� I ."'- - - v.02- ., t A E y. 0 0., �Y,�-r ns- y7**s �+' ' k , ,., 1 cd,,, .. ,,,‘... 7>>. c5,,e t so no 0,-0 vosswo i''' Ii ■ tilwi tont , %WI 70 4 % "••••T'r---1 - SO 0;i4sttoo •, Kt 10/$4 0 s ks. o g vi N0� ��t�o0•�� t% o# ‘ 1 , At‘t*: ■ -Ow' ‘0 ' 0 1 IP 4111k 9. 0���I 1� ##�� c�.. ° se* co ., 0 „...o, oiil et 0 :5 0 LA' 01. 4Atl 4 .. .<?* # •75 *fi 4 70 .4. . , , . -2 g ‘ . , -_,40” -r.6..,_ . . . , „I < 5 t '1/413 li r 0 '-•... WI ,„.„ . , A , 2 iy< e O'r * ,1171N /1 / -. '... . = 0. *1% *0, f$4\ o N a ' w p& c)2 Warns va0048 •100 04 000A 4 ir r,„. ' Ila■ _________ W ♦o�I oI��1� • i 0- W ATTACHMENT## TO 1-12 Z._ L of 1 1 W7ORONTO AND REGION onservation for The Living City AMBERLEA CREEK EROSION CONTROL PROJECT PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO Marilee Gadzovski Senior Water Resources and Environmental Engineer City of Pickering Operations and Emergency Services Department Engineering Services Division 1 The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 May 22, 2012 SUBMITTED BY Laura Stephenson, Manager Project Management Office, Restoration Services Toronto and Region Conservation 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 ATTACHMENT# Z TOREPORT# -I2 1 1 9 • of 11 Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Project 1.0 Background Amberlea Creek is located north of Frenchman's Bay in the City of Pickering and the western sector of the Region of Durham. The Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Project was identified within Phase I (of a 5 Year Plan) of the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan. However, during the Master Plan process TRCA ecology staff noted that the preferred alternative (hardening of the creek) for this project would most likely mean removal of the heavily vegetated valley that has been designated an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) in order to facilitate an access road.The lack of mitigation for the loss of the ESA was not built into the selection of the preferred alternative and as such, there was concern about the selection of this approach as the most viable option. It was agreed that in order to move forward with approval of the Master Plan document as a whole, the City of Pickering would investigate all the viable alternatives when a site specific Environmental Assessment for the proposed Amberlea Creek erosion works commenced. Among the alternatives to be considered during the EA process, are those outlined in the Master Plan. This includes an option to protect the section of channel downstream of the Bayly Street culvert. 2.0 Purpose The Study Area defined for this Class EA consists of the open watercourses of Amberlea Creek from the CN tracks north of Sheppard Avenue to the outlet of Frenchman's Bay. The majority of the erosion issues are understood to be located in the lower 590m of the watershed south of Bayly Street. The EA will consider the need to protect at risk valley walls against further erosion, with focus on the downstream channel and Bayly culvert outlet. Construction impacts (eg access), mitigative strategies and habitat compensation requirements will also be evaluated. 3.0 Project Scope In partnership with the City of Pickering,TRCA is proposing to take the lead role in the commencement of a Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) which will facilitate the required Amberlea Creek erosion works. The planning and design phases of the project will be completed under the Class Environmental Assessment process in accordance with Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (2002). Standard to the Class EA process is the evaluation of the "do nothing" alternative, which must determine and describe the anticipated effects at the site should no remedial work be undertaken. TRCA has outlined the major tasks in five phases in Table 1. Table 1. Proposed Scope of Work Phase I • Obtain all available biophysical, socioeconomic, cultural and Define Problem engineering information available from past studies • Identify data gaps, and develop TRCA work plan updating requisite existing conditions database to support Class EA • Prepare problem /opportunity statement for Class EA Phase II • Identify and evaluate preliminary alternative solutions to the problem Identify/Evaluate • Define study area boundaries Alternatives • Coordinate required surveys and studies (fisheries, terrestrial, archaeological) • Prepare Request for Proposal for consulting services (fluvial geomorphology and geotechnical engineering) to support the Class EA • Prepare Request for Proposal for a Public Facilitator to assist with PICs Toronto and Region Conservation 2 ATTACHMENT# Z TOREPORT#_CS_P-1-12 of 120 Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Project • Prepare revised work plan and cost estimate for approval by City of Pickering • Select the preferred consulting teams • Prepare detailed inventory of the environment • Prepare alternatives • Identify positive and negative effects of each alternative • Evaluate solutions with agency/public input • Select/confirm preferred solution Phase III • Identify alternative design concepts for the preferred solution Select Preferred • Identify net positive and negative effects of each alternative design Solution concept including mitigating measures • Evaluate alternative design concepts • Consult with review agencies and public • Select/confirm preferred design concept • Prepare preliminary designs for preferred solution Phase IV • Prepare ESR and circulate for agency/public input Prepare • File the ESR for 30 day review and issue Notice of Completion Environmental • Respond to any Part II Order requests Study Report • Prepare cost estimate for approval by City of Pickering for Phase V (ESR) activities (including Consulting fees associated with preparation of detailed design costs based on the preferred solution) Phase V* • Pending Minister of approval, complete detailed designs, incorporating Detailed Design, mitigating measures and habitat compensation plan and Approvals, • Secure permits and approvals *TRCA's involvement with the implementation phase of works to be discussed at a later date. 4.0 Project Team TRCA has over 35 years of experience in the planning and construction of erosion and slope stabilization projects. Frenchman's Bay and its tributaries, have also been the subject of intensive study by TRCA since 1995. Based on this experience and understanding of the environment, working in partnership with staff from the City of Pickering, TRCA will assume a leadership role in the completion of an Environmental Assessment to facilitate remedial erosion and slope stabilization works on Amberlea Creek. As such,TRCA will manage all aspects related to the completion of an Environmental Assessment, including public consultation, environmental inventories and analysis, preparation of an Environmental Study Report,.detailed designs and approvals. As part of the overall project management function, TRCA will prepare progress reports and payment requests (invoices) following completion of key project milestones for authorization by senior City of Pickering staff. The principal contacts and key personnel for the administration, management, planning, and development of the project are identified under their respective categories below. Toronto and Region Conservation 3 ATTACHMENT#2- TOREPORT# CS t-t2. 1 21 of_17— Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Project Project Team Contact: Lindsay Prihoda Title: Project Manager Role: Develop work plan, manage consultants, coordinate EA, public consultation, and approvals, manage project budget and prepare project reports and invoices for approval by Pickering. Phone: (416) 661-6600 x 5787 E-mail: Iprihoda @trca.on.ca Contact: Thomas Sciscione Title: Project Coordinator Role: Compile existing information, coordinate fieldwork, assist with environmental baseline and evaluation of alternatives, monitoring, mitigation plans, coordinate meetings, and public consultation process. Coordinate EA in compliance with combined federal/provincial process, prepare reports for submission to reviewing agencies and Steering Committee, coordinate the preparation of detailed designs, and procure all necessary environmental permits and approvals. Phone: (416) 661-6600 x 5749 E-mail: tsciscione @trca.on.ca Contact: Ken Dion Title: Senior Project Manager Role: Provide overall project direction and aid in identification and evaluation of preliminary alternatives, scoping the Consulting terms of reference, evaluation of consultant proposals, review of consultant reports, and critique and evaluate alternatives. Phone: (416) 661-6600 x 5230 E-mail: kdion @trca.on.ca Contact: Rob Grech Title: Water Resources Engineer Role: Act as a subject matter expert to aid in scoping the Consulting terms of reference, evaluation of consultant proposals, review of consultant reports, and evaluation of alternatives. Phone: (416) 661-6600 x 5220 E-mail: rgrech @trca.on.ca Consultants TRCA anticipates that the services of consultants will be required to complete the project. These consultant services are anticipated to include the provision public consultation facilitation, fluvial geomorphology, and geotechnical engineering expertise. Any consultants engaged in this project will be retained through a competitive process, in adherence with TRCA Policies and Procedures for Purchase of Goods and Services. City of Pickering approval will be required prior to the signing of any third party agreements. Toronto and Region Conservation 4 ATTACHMENT#Z TO RE PORT # Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Project 5.0 Milestone Schedule Phase I May 23, 2012 City of Pickering Project Communication June 11, 2012 City of Pickering -Executive June 18, 2012 City of Pickering -Council June 22, 2012 TRCA Project Approval June 27, 2012 Project Start-up Meeting • discuss available information, and work plan July 6, 2012 Compile existing information July 13, 2012 Finalize Work Plan July 16, 2012 Initiate Fieldwork and Surveys September 7, 2012 Issue Notice of Study Commencement September 10, 2012 Circulate Invitations for Community Liaison Committee (CLC) Phase II August 23, 2012 Steering Committee Meeting #1 • identify and evaluate preliminary alternatives • discuss RFP Terms of Reference September 14, 2012 Request for Proposal to Consultants October 1, 2012 Proposals must arrive at TRCA by 12:00 pm October 3, 2012 Circulate proposals to review committee October 9, 2012 Consultant Selection Committee Meeting • discuss and evaluate proposals October 12, 2012 Proposal to City of Pickering-Revised Work Plan and Estimate October 26, 2012 Authority Meeting-Approve selection October 30, 2012 Award of professional services to selected consultant November 1, 2012 Steering Committee Meeting #2 Toronto and Region Conservation 5 ATTACHMENT TO REPORT#CS- .l I2 1 2 3 of__.11 Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Project • finalize the detailed work plan,tasks, resource allocations and project activities with consultant • discuss baseline environmental inventory December 6, 2012 Consultant's Report 1 Due-Risk Assessment and Potential Alternatives December 13, 2012 Steering Committee Meeting #3 • existing conditions • factors contributing to erosion • results of risk assessment • discuss project targets and potential alternatives December 18, 2012 CLC Meeting #1 • introduce project, EA process, role and expectations of CLC, meeting schedule • present existing conditions,factors contributing to erosion and results of risk assessment December 21, 2012 Complete Existing Conditions Report January 7, 2013 Public Consultation (PIC) #1 -Advertisement Due January 11, 2013 Consultant's Report 2 Due=Alternatives and Costs January 17, 2013 Steering Committee Meeting #4 • review baseline environmental report • discuss alternative options and costs, including the "do nothing" scenario January 31, 2013 Steering Committee Meeting #5 • evaluate alternative options and costs • discuss and prep for PIC #1 February 6, 2013 CLC Meeting #2 • review baseline environmental report • discuss and evaluate alternative options and costs, including the "do nothing" scenario February 13, 2013 Public Information Centre#1 • introduce project, and EA process • present existing conditions, factors contributing to erosion and results of risk assessment • present the alternative options and costs, including the "do nothing" scenario and results of evaluation February 22, 2013 Receive feedback from PIC Toronto and Region Conservation 6 ATTACHMENT#Z TOREPORT#S5-4I'IZ of_Li__ 124 Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Project March 1, 2013 Consultation Report 1 Due Phase III March 7, 2013 Steering Committee Meeting #6 • review results of public meeting and discuss modified and/or additional alternative options March 28, 2013 Consultant's Report 3 Due-Preferred Solution April 1, 2013 PIC #2-Advertisement Due April 4, 2013 Steering Committee Meeting #7 • present the preferred alternative and address technical questions • discuss prep for PIC #2 April 18, 2013 CLC Meeting #3 • discuss preferred alternative and construction access May 8, 2013 PIC #2 • present the final design of the preferred alternative and address technical questions May 17, 2013 Receive feedback from PIC • May 24, 2013 Consultation Report 2 Due Phase IV May 31, 2013 Consultant's Final Report Due June 6, 2013 Steering Committee Meeting #8 • meeting to discuss final ESR and wrap-up community consultation process June 11, 2013 CLC Meeting #4 • • provide copy of the ESR for review and comment • discuss next steps June 13, 2013 Draft ESR available for comment July 5, 2013 File ESR for 30 day calendar review August 5, 2013 Class EA process complete August 9, 2013 Proposal to City of Pickering- Revise Work Plan and Estimate (will include updated Consultant fees for detailed design) Toronto and Region Conservation 7 ATTACHMENT# TOREPORT#SaS.L2HZ/ 125 _Lof Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Project Phase V September 6, 2013 Steering Committee Meeting #9 • discuss detailed designs, approvals and tender documents September 27, 2013 Detailed Designs, Compensation, Monitoring, Operation and Maintenance Plans Due October 4, 2013 Submit applications for permits and approvals 6.0 Budget Based on TRCA's understanding of the project the total cost to complete the required planning, Class EA, detailed design and approvals to facilitate construction is estimated at approximately $532,334 (including HST and a 15% contingency). This estimate is based on TRCA's projected costs as outlined in Table 1 and with an understanding that required consulting services (including Fluvial Geomorphology, Geotechnical Studies) and a public facilitator may cost upwards of$215,000 (further details of anticipated costs are provided as an attachment). Table 1. Summary of estimated costs Item Cost Project Management $27,805 Phase I $9,930 Define Problem Phase II $69,479 Identify/Evaluate Alternative Solutions Phase III $19,737 Select Preferred Design Phase IV $32,227 Prepare Environmental Study Report (ESR) Phase V $15,467 Detailed Design, and Approvals, Disbursements $20,000 Subtotal $194,645 Consultant Fees $215,000* (Fluvial Geomorphology, Geotechnical Studies and Public Facilitator) Contingency 15% '$61,447 HST $61,242 TOTAL $532,334** *consulting fees will be revised based on tender results **total cost to be adjusted to reflect total consulting fees based on tender results 7.0 Work Plan TRCA is defined as a public body in Section 3 of Regulation 334/90 in the Environmental Assessment Act (R.S.O.) 1990, and as such, must conduct its remedial flood and erosion control projects in accordance with said Act. Toronto and Region Conservation 8 ATTACHMENT# 2_ TO REPORT# .A.1—I CI of 1 26 Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Project Recognizing that common elements exist in addressing flood and erosion problems, a coordinated approach to environmental assessments was developed by Conservation Ontario for all Conservation Authorities (CAs) known as the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial and Erosion Control Projects (Class EA). According to the Class EA document: "Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects refer to those projects undertaken by Conservation Authorities, which are required to protect human life and property, in previously developed areas,from an impending flood or erosion problem. Such projects do not include works which facilitate or anticipate development. Major flood and erosion control undertakings which do not suit this definition, such as multipurpose projects, lie outside the limits of this Class require an Individual Environmental Assessment" (Conservation Ontario, 2002). Almost twenty years of experience have demonstrated that using the Class EA approach for dealing with flood and erosion control projects is an effective way of complying with the Act requirements. Approval of the Class EA allows CAs to carry out these types of projects without applying for formal approval under the Act, on the condition that all other necessary federal and provincial approvals are obtained. A chart illustrating the key steps of the Class EA planning and design process is shown in Figure 1. • I Mine Mon Ce. I I l D arnma1;Militrtlill nvwiE ?+4 onw6iisFrm.urwiptSwf A. I MO l+P NTI,Am orm&igni R Mar!PONICRI.fii MLi llPY, 1 a [ Ku w wn � K+ ,.. . . a uwNwa i a P•lPEPS 0111176T PLAIN I in CifrAOK,K111FL LTina REMIT P lf-MIL P157.�NL.IMRlC4Y:, 1 4 ` a 'anti r.,..,ea7rlisW q.n+l1 mcmor.orm O.MOP R I /+!i" '4 lwI+MFP+45F[r�llRf"' FWILAMIPANISS4 111 " *mil fl ,j NI,4 a I PlnuUI Wrinffli aP rL,a T-0N Mai W.+1140!!.Y!1 PAi14YPii MD RalYiaYl[GAT AaU C'IIGcw&i tIC:C76PsTn7 Amos cowatris a Lim= PMr 1_ - Ha minTRI I,EN41104•1lr+r+it, MOMT+PlP•31eDS1reln TJ.rYI 4 _ _ ~MI lialei Co muit:i.~ter& &PROMO Ta•C4lfiTWiMIWi �bRIS' Figure 1. Class Environmental Assessment Planning and Design Process. Source: Conservation Ontario, 2002. Toronto and Region Conservation 9 1 27 ATTACHMENT#_2_ TO REPORT# CS Q1-42-, 10 of • Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Project In addition to the Class EA process,TRCA recognizes that the project may require an environmental screening under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The project will result in "physical work" and is therefore considered a"project" as defined by the Act. Additionally the project is not listed in the Exclusion List Regulations, which would negate the need for an assessment under CEAA. CEAA may be triggered in response to the potential environmental impacts that the physical work will produce pursuant to subsection 35(2) under the federal Fisheries Act and section 5(1) of the federal Navigable Waters Protection Act. In 2004, the Canadian and Ontario governments reached an agreement on EA cooperation, which created an administrative framework for federal-provincial cooperation on projects subject to both the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and the provincial Environmental Assessment Act. Toronto and Region Conservation is therefore proposing to undertake a coordinated Environmental Assessment (EA) process to satisfy the information requirements of both EA processes. Phase I - Description of Problem The majority of Amberlea Creek's 4 km2 of watercourse is enclosed in a stormsewer system upstream of Bayly Street resulting in at least a 6 times increase in peak flows at the south side of Bayly. The stream outlets with significant flows from the south side of Bayly into a deep, narrow, steep and heavily forested ravine. Private properties line the ravine in close proximity of the top of the valley wall. Wide-spread channel instability is observed throughout these last 600 m of open channel before Amberlea empties into Frenchman's Bay. Flows are sediment starved, the bed has been widened and entrenched, often eroding into the underlying weathered shale and clay hardpan. In some areas,the channel occupies a large majority of the valley bottom, and the width of the baseflow conditions frequently occupies less than half the bankfull channel width. Past channel and valley wall protection works have been observed to have failed, are in the process of failing, or are causing additional instability elsewhere along the valley. Of particular concern, erosion of the valley wall on the south side of Amberlea Creek south of Bayly Street is impacting the rear yards of several properties which front onto Vistula Drive. The channel has downcut up to 1.5 m and widened considerably and the toe of a 10 m high valley wall is being severely eroded with the fence posts clearly seen at the top of the erosion scar. In addition, the outlet of the culvert under Bayly Street has been undercut forming a drop of almost 2 m at its outlet. As the FBSWMMP identified that watershed-wide controls within the Amberlea Creek watershed will not reduce the flows at this location sufficiently to avoid future erosion in the remaining lower 600m of the watershed. Past localized valley and channel protection works have proven to be ineffective and as such, a comprehensive end-of-pipe solution is required to prevent the loss of life and property. Phase II - Identify and Evaluate Alternative Solutions TRCA will prepare a baseline environmental inventory of the existing conditions of Amberlea Creek and its surrounding environs. The baseline environmental inventory will provide the information heeded to evaluate the alternative options developed through the Class EA process, and a baseline from which to monitor the types and level of environmental impacts that may result from implementing the preferred alternative. This inventory will involve the examination and documentation of: • existing site conditions, including physical, biological, cultural and socioeconomic characteristics; Toronto and Region Conservation 10 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# 21-12_ �of 17 128 Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Project • engineering/technical aspects to be considered; and • previous works undertaken within the study area. As per the requirements of the CEAA process, this baseline environmental inventory will take into consideration the directly and indirectly affected environment. The indirect area affected by the project includes the geographic limits of the alternative creek alignments, open gabion channels north of Highway 401, and development adjacent to the defined project limits, including the pedestrian bridge and associated valley fill near the creek mouth. This indirect area is referred to as the regional study area. The area directly affected by the project is referred to as the study area or project site. TRCA will identify and prepare a description of all reasonable and feasible alternative solutions to the problem. These would include, but may not be limited to the following broad suite of alternatives: localized protection works; comprehensive protection works; and flow diversions. As required by all EAs, a "do nothing" alternative will be included as it provides a baseline condition for comparison of the effects and impacts by the other alternatives being considered. The information obtained in completing the baseline inventory will then be used to in the evaluation of these alternative options, giving specific consideration to the positive and negative impacts on the existing physical, biological, socioeconomic, cultural, and technical environments. Mitigating measures will also be considered for each alternative. This evaluation of the alternative options is expected to lead to the identification of a preliminary recommended solution for agency and public consideration. Phase Ill - Select Preferred Design Once the public understands the potential impacts of the alternative solutions and a preliminary solution is supported, alternative designs will be prepared. A detailed evaluation of these alternatives will consider all possible environmental impacts to the extent that a preferred design can be selected. This will include an examination of the types and extents of impacts, both positive and negative, that each alternative would have, including but not limited to: • The significance of the expected environmental effects; • The degree of the effectiveness of the method; • The extent of the technical feasibility; and • The magnitude of costs. Once the preferred design is chosen, the detailed environmental analysis stage will commence to determine both temporary impacts during construction of the undertaking, and permanent impacts due to operation and maintenance of the undertaking after construction. To complete this environmental analysis, the information collected as part of the baseline environmental inventory will be examined in greater detail to confirm potential impacts, refine methods of mitigation, and identify any unforeseen impacts. This analysis will include consideration of the magnitude, geographic extent, duration,frequency, permanence or reversibility and ecological context of the effects, as well as proposed mitigation measures and any residual effects. A description of the effects the environment may have on the project including the temporal and spatial extent of these effects will be undertaken. A determination will be made of the measures to be implemented in order to mitigate any effects and whether the residual effects are significant or not. This evaluation process will require consultation with the public and other interest groups. Toronto and Region Conservation 11 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT#a 1 1 I —IL of 17 Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Project Phase IV- Environmental Study Report The Environmental Study Report will provide a record of the decision making process.The report will include the following as prepared by TRCA: • A description of the problem or opportunity and other background information. • The rationale employed in selecting the preferred solution to the problem. • The rationale employed in selecting the preferred design. • A description of the environmental considerations and impacts. • The mitigating measures which will be undertaken to minimize environmental effects. • A description of the consultation process and an explanation of how concerns raised by the public and review agencies have been addressed in developing the project. • A description of the monitoring program which will be carried out during construction and, if necessary, for a specific time during operation. • Details of the ways in which the results of a monitoring program will be communicated to the public and review agencies shall be included. Once the Steering Committee has had an opportunity to review and comment on the ESR, TRCA will finalize the document and make it available for review by the public and regulatory agencies for at least 30 calendar days. At the time of filing the ESR,the public and review agencies will be notified by issuing the Notice of Completion of ESR, including notification of the provision to request a Part II Order. Phase V- Detailed Design and Approvals If the Minister receives no request for a Part II Order within the review period, then the proponent may proceed to Phase V and implementation of the project. Following the receipt of the Environmental Assessment Act Section 9 Notice of Approval to Proceed with the Undertaking from the Ministry of the Environment, TRCA will coordinate the preparation of detailed designs for the project. The detailed designs will inform the preparation tender package and assist with TRCA's procurement of other environmental permits, habitat compensation plan, and approvals required prior to implementation. The anticipated approvals include: • Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation Approved Cultural Heritage Resource Study • Department of Fisheries and Oceans- Fish Habitat Management Authorization for the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat pursuant to subsection 35 (2) of the Fisheries Act • Transport Canada- Canada Coast Guard Section 5 (1) of the Navigable Waters Protection Act • Transport Canada-Canada Coast Guard Section 5 (2) of the Navigable Waters Protection Act • Ministry of Natural Resources Section 2, Ontario Regulation 453/96, Public Lands Act Work Permit Consultation and Communication Strategy TRCA's Consultation and Communication Strategy recognizes the need for accountability to the public, stakeholders, and regulatory agencies by providing an inclusive and coordinated approach. A Public Consultation Plan will be developed, commensurate with the level of interest expressed by the general public regarding the proposed works. Local residents and stakeholders groups will be Toronto and Region Conservation 12 ATTACHMENT#Hof TOREPORT# 1-Z_ 17 1 7 0 Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Project invited to participate in a Community Liaison Committee which will be formed should there be considerable interest in the project. A minimum of two Public Information Centres will also be held to receive feedback and address public concerns. As the proponent for the project, City of Pickering will be requested to attend all Public Information Centres. During the EA process, regulatory agencies such as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada Coast Guard, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources, and others will be asked to meet with TRCA and the City of Pickering on an as needed basis to review and discuss the project to ensure that the interests of these agencies are met. Steering Committee A Steering Committee, comprised of TRCA and City of Pickering staff, will provide overall direction and input into the project throughout each planning phase. The Steering Committee, made up of the following City and TRCA staff, will be requested to attend regular meetings on an as needed basis to provide overall project direction and input. This Committee will meet at least once during each phase of the planning process. Contact: Nick Saccone Title: Director, Restoration Services Role: Steering Committee Co-chair Phone: (416) 661-6600, x5301 E-mail: nsaccone @trca.on.ca Contact: Marilee Gadzovski Title: Senior Water Resources and Environmental Engineer Role: Steering Committee Co-chair Phone: (905) 420-4660, x2067 E-mail: mgadzovski @pickering.ca Contact: Richard Holborn Title: Division Head, Engineering Services Role: Provide information and advice related to public works and infrastructure. Phone: (905) 420-4660, x2049 E-mail: rholborn @pickering.ca Contact: Dena Lewis Title: Manager,Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Role: Provide information and advice related to biological environment, and project design. Phone: (416) 661-6600, x5225 E-mail: dlewis @trca.on.ca Contact: Arnold Mostert Title: Coordinator, Landscape& Park Development Role: Provide information and advice related to project design. Phone: (905) 420-4660, x2143 E-mail: amostert@pickering.ca Contact: Nick Lorrain Title: Coordinator, Water Resources Role: Provide information and advice related to project design. Phone: (905) 420-4660, x.2210 E-mail: nlorrain @pickering.ca Toronto and Region Conservation 13 ATTACH MENT# TO REPORT#2.5 131 of Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Project Community Liaison Committee To facilitate ongoing stakeholder involvement at the planning level of the project a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) made up of stakeholder representatives will be formed. The CLC will allow TRCA and the City of Pickering to maintain communication with community residents, local groups, associations, and organizations that share an interest in Frenchman's Bay and the project. To ensure that the CLC is representative of the community,TRCA, and the City of Pickering will work together to identify all stakeholder groups that will be invited to provide a representative to participate as a member of the CLC. The CLC will inform the planning, consistent with the project's purpose. It is anticipated that the CLC will meet approximately four times during the Environmental Assessment process. Meetings shall be scheduled to ensure that the majority of the CLC members have the opportunity to attend. The two key functions of the CLC will be to identify items of public concern related to the impact and design of the project and to offer potential advice or solutions to resolve these concerns. To ensure that the CLC operates in this capacity, TRCA will develop a Terms of Reference for the CLC, which will clearly articulate the purpose of the project, roles, and responsibilities, and expectations of its members. Public Information Centres In compliance with the approved EA process, a minimum of two Public Information Centres (PICs) are proposed to allow for public comment on the project. These public meetings will provide opportunities for the community to be made aware of the project and to have their concerns • addressed. Based on the nature of the project,TRCA is proposing to introduce the project to the • community during Phase II of the Class EA process. This will give the City of Pickering and TRCA the opportunity to clearly define the problem and the intent of the project to the public, and to document the factors, which led to the conclusion that remedial erosion works are required. At PIC #1,TRCA will present the problem statement to the public, the environmental considerations to be addressed during the evaluation of the alternatives,the alternatives solutions being considered and their impact on the environment, and the results of the evaluation. The second public meeting, PIC #2 will be held during Phase III to allow for public input on the selection of a preferred alternative. TRCA will present alternative designs for the preferred solution, present the potential impacts of the alternative design solutions, and discuss the results of the evaluation process. Communication Plan TRCA will ensure that project information is clearly articulated, current, and widely accessible to the public. As such,TRCA will coordinate the preparation of news releases and web updates to communicate information about the project to correspond with each phase of the EA process. The project website will introduce the project to the public and provide updates and information on next steps. The website will also be used as a mechanism to advertise upcoming venues for public participation. TRCA will issue a minimum of four public advertisements of the project. As per the requirements of the EA process, this will include the mandatory public announcements of the project, which includes the Notice of Commencement and Notice of Completion. These project notices will be sent to local media outlets and mailed directly to reviewing agencies and stakeholders. The planned Public Information Centres will also be advertised via local media outlets such as the Ajax/Pickering News Advertiser. Toronto and Region Conservation 14 ATTACH MENT# ° - TO REPORT# 5.�/-1 /iof /7 132 Amberlea Creek Erosion Control Project 10.0 Detailed Schedule and Cost Estimate See Attachment • Toronto and Region Conservation 15 • . L, ..•': ,:.,r,, : „(.." of-1-7-- - 2012 •1 Task No Ambedea Erosion Control Project Class EA 2012/2013 Milestone Schedule J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S CI 1) A , ... ....i 1.0■.,rolect Management 1.1 Schedule and Cost Control )11P•A . 44010011:6141.•••••14••illier•••••••f•• 1.2 Project Reporting •• ,. el ••• iesso•eliteshe,oeteittimoiel 1.3 Consultant Management 00._ 00* . • .•I 1.4 Authority Approval 27-Jul-12 • 1.5 RFPS for Consultin•Services 14-Se.12 1.6 Consultant Selection Committee Meeting 9-Oct-12 • 1.7 Authority Meeting-Consultant selection 26-Oct-12 • 1.8 City of Pickering-Communication of Consultant Selection and Revised Costs 12-Oct-12 • ■ 1.9 Consultant Contracts 30-Oct-12 • 1.10 Develop Consultation Plan 14-Aug-12 .II 1.11 Stakeholder Management and Communication • 0••-•••••••14ft...otivior•mlrer•Toe,1 1.12 Project Close Out 2.0 Phase I:Define Problem 2.1 Project Start-up Meeting 31-Jul-12 • 2.2 Compile Existing Information and Id Date Gaps 7-Aug-12 pill _ 2.3 Prepare Workplan and Problem/Opportunity Statement 14-Aug-12 [11 2.4 Issue Notice of Commencement 7-Sep-12 • _ 2.5 Circulate invitations for CLC 10-Sep-12 • _ 2.6 Create Webpage 31-Aug-12 • 3.0 Phase II:Identify and Evaluate Alternatives 3.1 Define Study Area Boundaries 011! . - _ - 3.2 Identify Preliminary Alternatives RR 3.3 Develop Evaluation Criteria for Preliminary Alternatives 11111 - 3.4 Technical Steering Committee Meeting#1-Identify and Evaluate Preliminary Attematives 23-Aug-12 • _ - 3.6 Evaluate Preliminary Alternatives 4 - 4.0 Prepare Baseline Environmental Inventory 4.1 Technical Steering Committee Meeting#2-Discuss Baseline Inventory and Consultant's Scope of Work 1-Nov-12 • 4.2 Prepare Mapping ilLil 4.3 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment - 4.4 Fisheries Assessment . 4.5 Terrestrial Survey - P 4.8 Review Fluvial Assessment/Geotech Risk Assessment and Potential Alternatives - 6-Dec-12 - 34 - 4.7 Complete Existing Conditions Report J 21-Dec-12 MI 5.0 Prepare Alternatives 5.1 Technical Steering Committee Meeting#3-Discuss Risk Assessment and Potential Alternatives 13-Dec-12 5.2 CLC Meeting#1-Discuss Class EA Process,Expectations,Existing Conditions and Results of Risk Assess 18-Dec-12 ..I 0 [ 5.3 Review Consultant's Report on Alternatives 11-Jan-13 5.4 Technical Steering Committee Meeting#4-Review Aftematives and Costs 17-Jan-13 6.0 amermEvaluate Alternatives 6.1 Determine environmental effects of alternatives _ - 6.2 Id mitigation measures 6.3 Technical Steering Committee Meeting#5-Finalize Evaluation of Alternatives and Public Consultation 31-Jan-13 • 6.4 Update Webstte 28-Jan-13 6.5 CLC Meeting#2-Review Baseline Report,Alternatives and Costs _ 6-Feb-13 6.6 Advertise PIC#1 _ - 1-Feb-13_ 6.7 Prep for PIC#1 - 6.8 PIC#1 13-Feb-13 6.9 Consultation Report#1 Due 1-Mar-13 6.10 Consult with Review Agencies 7.0 NeFthase 111:a3eieet Preferred Solution mwm■ A' / n .. 7.1 Technical Steering Committee Meeting#6-Discuss Alternative Designs for Preferred Solution 7-Mar-13 - - 7.2 Prepare alternative designs for Preferred Solution . _ 7.3 Identify net positive and negative effects 7.4 Evaluate preferred solution with mitigation 7.5 Technical Steering Committee Meetin•#7-Discuss Evaluation of Preferred Solution 4-Apr-13 7.6 CLC Meeting#3-Discuss Preferred Alternative and Construction Access 18-Apr-13 7.7 Update Website 22-Apr-13 7.8 Advertise PIC#2 27-Apr-13 7.9 PIC#2 8-May-13 • 7.10 Consultation Report#2 Due 24-May-13 .1: • , .... - - 7.11 Consult with Review Agencies IN 1 8.0 Phase IV:Prepare Environmental Study Report(ESR) • • 8.1 Description/Background el 8.2 Selection of Preferred • Ill 8.3 Environmental considerations and impacts :sip 8.4 Outline mitigating measures 8.5 Consultation process summary 8.6 Develop environmental compliance and monitoring program 8.8 Technical Steering Committee Meeting#8-Discuss Draft ESR 6-Jun-13 8.9 CLC Meeting#4-Provide Copy of Draft ESR and Discuss Next Steps 11-Jun-13 • 8.10 Draft ESR available for comment 13-Jun-13 . ••i . 8.11 Consultant's Final Report Due 31-May-13 8.12 Final edit and publishing of ESR 8.13 File ESR for at least 30 calendar day review 5-Jut-13 8.14 Class EA Complete 5-Aug-13 9.0 Phase V:Design 5 Approvals 9.1 Technical Steering Committee Meeting#9-Discuss Detailed Design Specifications 6-Sep-13 4 9.2 Complete design drawings 9.3 Complete Monitoring,Operation and Maintenance Plan ." 9.4 Regulatory Approvals and Permit Applications • 5/22/2012 A:-,AC:k il!,:,N“;.. ..... 09.-- a)RE pocal.t.C..S „2._I-I 2- 1 3 4 Task No Amberfea Erosion Control Pro act Class EA 201212013 R Hours Rate A Hours Rate C Hours Rate I Hours Rate Lum•Sum Estimate 1.0 I'ro eat snowsuit I 1.1 Schedule and Cost Control La 35 7 9.22 PMI 15$65.78 MMECIIM ILIE■Pro act Re•ortin LE1111111•IIMETZ1111=1111133E111M1■11■1•11■■•11■111MIZE EIMIIIE1121=SIM IONIMMEIDEEIGIMIMLIELEIFEIMIIMMININIM■111■1111■111111.12ffial MIMI Authon A rov taillill.tianalgalliEMEIMMINNIMEMIMMIMMIllMIEMIIIIMEIKED OMINGILEE1=16. '03111Mg312LEBIZIIIMMIECIFIEW ailuMetitatiDGESEMIHINIIIIIIIIE■1111ErKEI OEM Consultant Selection Committee Meetin• GEIMMIN=ggaimipma=111=131mEEIGLERIMMIIIIMIEEMMINIIIMEll Elf Authon Meefin• [231111111INGEMIEMIM=EZEIE■MMIIMINIIMII=1■11■1111=212 ilEMIEMEEEIMEF. 10 MMILIEILE3111111■1111=IMIMMIMINNIMIIIIMIIII■11■111WEE INME IONIINIIIMILEZZIIMMEIONNII■MENIMMMIIIMMIIIII■IIMIE Dom Develo Cons [011111111EMEENIZIIMIKEIEMI■IIMINIMIIMINIMMIIII■1■111MIM MIME EIMHEIM g91111111111EMEEIGIOMMIONLIIMIMIIMIIMIIMI■IMIIIMMIZEI ausim4 La IIIIIIIIIMEM1111111113CLEI■■■=11111M MIIIIM■11111EIKIE 2.0 Phase I:Define Problem 2.1 Pro not Start-u•Meets, PC 7 1.22 PMI 7 565.78 rP, .. 9 PMI 7 .5.90 $1,884 aEM Com•lie Existm•Information and Id Data Ga. 123M11111:2MILMIIIMICIEMEIN11■1■11•11=1111■■11NEEEM BEM Pro.are Wor°tan end Problem/O••ortuni La INIMIELICEMMIMIKIECEMIMI■■■■111■1■11•11:39311 EMII Ea 111•111HIEELIZIIIIIIIMEM■11=INNIIMIIMMII■11•1 MMINIIIIIIECIE EMI Gi3•111111113EMEL173110111E11310=111■11■11•11■11■11•11INIMIIIMIKED EI =IM:111■ GE111111111111112MEMONN1512217:3MIIIMNIMMINIM■■111111=112 3.0 Phase II:Identify and Evaluate Alternatives 3.1 Define Stu. Area Boundaries La $44 PM 7$65.78 $805 EIE■07.=012= GEINIIIIIICEIDEM11111111112MualaMimutioni=111111111111111111E11120■•1110E0 E Develo.Evaluation Criteria for Prelimina 101111111111111E:EIEGEAMINIEMJIIIIMINIELEITZ11111111111111111MEEIIIIMIIIMESEED Eli: Technical Steerin.Committee Meefin.#1-!dent and Evaluate Prehmina Akematives 101111111111113EMM1101111012013mmtarmacummemwan■mom 11:11M2= rall111111111.2DEGIM■IMMELIMMIIIMMIEHMINIE11111111132111■111MICEI 4.0 Prepare Baseline Environmental Inventory 4.1 Technical Steerm•Committee Meetin•#2-Discuss Baseline Invents and Consultant's Sco•e of Work La 1 6 PMI 14$65.78 trP 91,1111 PMII W.-o $2,689 ViElinr=r1==lb. GE11111111112aFIEE3=11111M■1111•MIMMINIMMIIII■11■11111110:13 G11€ 12171:112121=117M■ ■Ii13•111111/3EILEE=11111113EMMIIMIIIII■11M•111111■ $7,000 MIMEO 3=111 12111111111EMEIIIIIIIIIMEMIMIIII■MIIIIM■l■ $5,000 ELM Pt TReerrvieeswtriFailuSyrarivey Eill111111121111•1"■■■=m $3 500 $3,845 Assessment/Geotech Risk Assessment 01:12=NRIELLIERMIIMMU S#$760 11,884 121! Complete Existing Conditions Re• GiEl■EICEE31•111111111KCIEMEZIMIlialliLl=11111M11111111LIMMIMIIMEEM 5.0 Prepare Alternatives 5.1 Technical Steerin•Committee Meetin•#3-Discuss Risk Assessment and Potential Alternatives PC 14 PHI 14 65.78 Cara LUAU-IA 9' ••. $2,689 @MI CLC Meebn•#1-Discuss Class EA Process,Ex.ectations Existn.Conditions and Results of Risk Assessme millimpEEED mom rum mia■fammumimmigvan■IIIEEIEM ElE=11 Review Consultant's Re•oil on Alternatives Li31111111111115ELEMII•1111E1EEfd]3JIIIIIIINEiLIU3GZMIIIIIIIUIIIIIIEIRE19 I■1lMEBEEC 5.4 Technical Steering Committee Meeting#4-Review AltematNes and Costs PC 14 149.22 PM 14$65.78•PM 7 88 19-MI1 7 185.90 $2,689 6.0 Evaluate Alternatives 1 6.1 Determine environmental effects of alternatives PC 14 9 PM 14 565.78 iZaa L11=Mill $ag. $2,689 EEM Id mit ration measures 1.1i1111111113111EEMEMINIEOEMEMZ1111EIDIEUZIMIIMIIIIIICIEEI■INIMI 6.3 Technical Steering Committee Meeting#5-Finalize Evaluation of Aitematives and Pubic Consultation PC 14$49.22 PM 14 565.78 pmll_ 7 565.90 $2,689 6.4 Update Websfte PC 7$49.22 PM 7$65.78 $805 6.5 CLC Meeting#2-Review Baseline Report,Alternatives and Costs PC 14$4922 PM 14$65 78;MUM • .19 PM11- $85.90 $2,689 6.6 Advertise PIC#1 PC 7$4922 PM 7$65.75■ $805 6.7 Prep for PIC#1 PC 21$49..-PM 14$65 78• • •• 9 Mill 1-.98-9:110 $3,033 6.8 PIC#1 PC 7$49,22 PM 7 165.78•rPM 7 06.19 P$111 7 965.90 $1,884 6.9 Consultation Report#1 Due PC 7$49.22 PM 7$65.78 $805 6.10 Consult with Review Agencies PC 14$4922 PM 14$65.78 $1,610 7.0 boatel&Select Preferred Solution 7.1 Technical Steering Committee Meeting#6-Discuss Alternative Designs for Preferred Solution PC 14$4822 PM 7 65.78 M set ie pm i 7 569.50 $2,228 7.2 Prepare alternative designs for Preferred Solution PC 14$4922 PM 14$65.78 M 7$9819 $2,227 7.3 Identify net positive and negative effects PC 14$4922 PM 7$65.78 M 7$08.10 PMII 7 355.60 $2,228 7.4 Evaluate preferred solution with mitigation PC 14$4922 PM 7 195.78 M 7$115 19 PMII 7 185 90 $2,228 7.5 Technical Steering Committee Meeting#7-Discuss Evaluation of Preferred Solution PC 14 14922 PM 7$65.78 f/I 7$46.19 PMII 7 $85.90 $2,228 7.6 CLC Meeting#3-Discuss Preferred Alternative and Construction Access PC 14$4922 PM 14$65.78 rPtal.. 7_988 19 F•1 ,. 985.90 $2,689 7.7 Update Website PC 7 94922 PM 7$65.78 $805 7.5 Advertise PIC#2 PC 7$4922 PM 7$65.78 $805 7.9 PIC#2 PC 7 14922 PM 7$65.78 WM 7 938 19 PMII 7 $85.90 $1,884 7.10 Consultation Report#2 Due PC 7$4922 PM 7$65.78 $805 7.11 Consult with Review Agencies PC 14$4922 PM 14$65.78 $1,610 3.0 Plume IV:Prepare Environmental Study Report(ESR) 8.1 Description/Background PC 21 $4922 PM 14$65.78 $1,955 8.2 Selection of Preferred PC 14$4022 PM 14$65.78 ird5arririnT KM 7 155.90 02.689 8.3 Environmental considerations and impacts PC 14$4922 PM 14$65.76 prPM 7 169.19 $2,227 8.4 Outline mitigating measures PC 14$4922 PM t4$65.78 SiPM, 7)66.89 $2,227 8.5 Consultation process summary PC 14$4922 PM 14$65.78 $1,610 8.6 Develop environmental compliance and monitoring program PC 35$4922 PM 14$65 714MT 77611T Nair -7 solo $3,722 8.7 Consultant's Draft Final Report Due PC 1414922 PM 21 $65.78 $2.070 8.8 Technical Steering Committee Meeting#8-Discuss Draft ESR PC 14$49.22 PM 14$69.18 prPM 7 356.18 Mill 7 $85.50 $2,689 8.9 CLC Meeting#4-Provide Copy of Draft ESR and Discuss Next Steps PC 14$4922 PM 14$55.78 GrPM 7.988.19$M11 I $62.90 $2,689 8.10 Draft ESR available for comment PC 21$4922 PM 21 $65.78 $2,415 8.11 Consultant's Final Report Due PC 21$4922 PM 21 565.78 $2,415 8.12 Final edit and publishing of ESR PC 21$4922 PM 14$89.78 $1,955 8.13 File ESR far at least 30 calendar day review PC 14$4922 PM 7$65.78 $1,150 8.14 Class EA Complete PC 21$46,22 PM 21 565.78 $2,415 9.0 Phase V:Design 4 Approvals 9.1 Technical Steering Committee Meeting#9-Discuss Detailed Design Specifications PC 14$41.22 PM 14 985.78 SrPM 7$85.19 PMII 7 965.90 $2,689 9.2 Complete design drawings PM 14$65.78 SrPM 7$08.19 PM11 7 965.90 $2,000 9.3 Complete Monitoring,Operation and Maintenance Plan PC 27 34922 PM 21 $65.78 SrPM I 7$90.15 $3,032 9.4 Regulatory Approvals and Permit Applications PC 70 14922 PM 56$65.78 StPtit I 7$68.18 $7,746 TRCA Disbursements/Administration 920,000 Sub-total of TRCA Costs $194,645 Consulting Fees $215,000 SUB-TOTAL $409,645 Contingency 15% $61,447 HST 13% $61,242 IGRAND TOTAL 032,33 5122/2012 ci 00c Report to a4 Executive Committee I ` KERIN v Report Number: CS 23-12 Date: June 11, 2012 5 From: Everett Buntsma Director, Community Services. Subject: No Parking By-law, Sandstone Manor - Amendment to By-law 6604/05 - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 23-12 of the Director, Community Services regarding the installation of No Parking Zones on Sandstone Manor, and a proposed amendment to the municipal traffic and parking by-law 6604/05 be received; and 2. Further that the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "2" to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of parking on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address parking concerns on Sandstone Manor. Executive Summary: In November and December 2011, Municipal Law Enforcement Services and Engineering Services staff received concerns related to large vehicle access and restricted traffic flow on Sandstone Manor caused by on-street parking. Observations by City staff verified access difficulties on the roadway and at the driveways for vehicles and large trucks when parking occurs on the east side of the roadway, and too close to the driveways on the west side of the roadway. Recognizing these concerns, in December 2011, temporary parking restrictions were placed along the full length of the east side of Sandstone Manor and on the west side of Sandstone Manor at the driveways. There have been no issues or complaints since the temporary parking restrictions have been in place. It is recommended that the existing temporary parking restrictions be replaced with permanent parking restrictions. Financial Implications: The addition of No Parking signs and posts can be accommodated within the Roads current budget. Report CS 23-12 June 11, 2012 Subject: No Parking By-law, Sandstone Manor 1 3 6 Amendment to By-law 6604/05 Page 2 Discussion: In November and December 2011, Municipal Law Enforcement Services and Engineering Services staff received concerns related to large vehicle access and restricted traffic flow on Sandstone Manor caused by on-street parking. Sandstone Manor is a no-exit street and can only be accessed by Granite Court. Commercial and private businesses have access from Sandstone Manor to their parking lots and loading bays. The concerns received were from employees of these businesses. There are no residential homes on Sandstone Manor. City staff investigated these concerns in December 2011, and found through observations that most motorists park on the west side of Sandstone Manor leaving the east side open, however, it was also observed that parking on the east side did occur. When this happened, large tractor trailer trucks that use the roadway for pick-ups and deliveries cannot pass through, and two-way traffic flow is restricted to one lane. Also, it was found that large trucks have difficulty accessing the driveways on the west side of the roadway when vehicles are parked too close to the driveways. Recognizing the need to resolve these issues, in December 2011, staff placed temporary parking restrictions along the entire east side of the roadway, and on the west side of the roadway at the driveways. The temporary parking restrictions have since been in place. There have been no issues or complaints since the temporary parking restrictions have been in place. To resolve the parking and traffic flow issues, staff recommends the existing temporary parking restrictions be replaced with permanent restrictions along the full length of the east side of Sandstone Manor and on the west side of Sandstone Manor at the driveways. The proposed recommendations can be found graphically in the attached sketch (Attachment #1). The draft by-law amendment to Schedule 2 of by-law 6604/05 for the proposed No Parking restrictions on Sandstone Manor is attached (Attachment #2). Attachments 1. Proposed Parking Restrictions, Sandstone Manor 2. Draft By-law Amendment — Schedule 2, No Parking Report CS 23-12 June 11, 2012 1 37 Subject: No Parking By-law, Sandstone Manor Amendment to By-law 6604/05 Page 3 Prepared By: Approved/ ► ' -d By: foX4 ,,,my 4 Nathan Emery Everett : ntsma NPD, CMM, Codinator, Traffic Operations Director, Community Services/ "// / i Darrell Selsky, ".E.T., C III Rich. d W. Ho.•orn, P. Eng. Supervisor Divi on Head, Engineering Services Engineering & Capital Works Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City ouncil 44, Varcj ZBrzo/_ Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT# I - TOREPORT# _ 02 3'12— _1._of_i_ . 138 it.,,,.,,„,... ..: .,,-. ,,,,, aok ..!,_,..._--- , ,..,,,ii„ . „3,1,:iiii„..„-;-,-----..1pAW,- ;: -...-:',....t _ . ,- ` 4- F P' r'y � _ $ ,,i.,,, , ,xf, , .„. . ,:,.... ,,, lc. ., ...4...1:: 4140? ‘,.. .. _,, ,:.$ 7.i.. ' ' • f .- -.; A.':1 , -.:' -, ,, - •:. 1 � � . w ... .... - ,, . .. . . N ;� ; ; .., . . . " ....,-- ,,,,.. ,M" ) , / .0 1, .'.7`,,,,.....::: V 0,00.,_____-- . M`�� .0.1 1 .. J. .d 9 -� s.,,. 1 i- P • .4.4-.',-"_ • ,,,2r; ._,,:\ ,-; - ...:,.. '14,/k'itk -, ',' -.:" • .-.:! .'.'s*- „ wif.„ ,_,4..'"4''''' ' ,,., ,•- '', 4:4. ..-P-teo \ .*', - - .:4 -t- ‘1,,..........4. : ' ,,,,, . , , , 4, ,, - . „..,. .. : . ., ....„ „..... ,, ...• .. , . , . ,...,....,.., „,..,... \:„. ,.. 4 .„,,, .... ,,,, ........::,...... ,,,,::. ,--,,,...., 7•76-.,. . ' . •.. t*- ,,e' •, A 1"-.:" .. il'A' ,„'),:= 4',-, ,; '7:ii.. 0 p •.r,..... 11(16_ - ,, , ,.,r .. ..„... ..f.,, , r; . ._ , ,,,,,, . , . 1 4 ' ''..,,..„:\.2".-41i,F -;''," i',. ,-‘ `",-'-ii"‘:.;:iii ,,, . N-, , ...,•,..,.:•.::::: ,lei/ ,..,,,,,,i,,, , ,./,.., ._.., ,,4, -:\4,•-• - ". 'N- S,;, :''ti*".,.:-1/4 " it ' . 1 47.....: ..e ,s ,.., ._* 'Qv ,_ :#1 ,:i.eg 'k . .; x . . ', w� Existing temporary parking '. _:f restrictions to be replaced with •. permanent parking restrictions 'fig E ''^ ' s % t" in the locations shown « � ,' ft % + Community Services Department Proposed Parking Restrictions c<<y�� Engineering Services Division `�`3 SCALE ■DRAWN DATE: Sandstone Manor N T.S April,2012 ' G ATTACkMENT#2._ zOREPORT# S X342- 1 : 9 of Z The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. Being a By-law to amend By-law 6604/05 providing for the regulating of parking, standing and stopping on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering and on private and municipal property. Whereas, By-law 6604/05, as amended, provides for the regulating of traffic and parking on highways, private property and municipal property within the City of Pickering; and; Whereas, it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 6604/05 to add "No Parking", zones on Sandstone Manor. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule 2 "No Parking" to By—law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto by the following: Schedule 2 No Parking Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Highway Side Limits (From/To) Prohibited Times or Days Add Sandstone Manor East Granite Court to 265 Anytime metres south of Granite Court ATTACHMENT#Z._ TOREPORT# C 3-1Z 2— of Ty-law No. Page 2 1 Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Highway Side Limits (From/To) Prohibited Times or Days Sandstone Manor West 50 metres south of Granite Anytime Court to 90 metres south of Granite Court, 140 metres south of Granite Court to 180 metres south of Granite Court, 205 metres south of Granite Court to 255 metres south of Granite Court This By-law shall come into force on the date that it is approved by the Council of The City of Pickering and when signs to the effect are installed. By-law read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 18th day of June, 2012. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk • cis 00 Report to • " ° Executive Committee I KERIN Report Number: CS 24-12 Date: June 11, 2012 1 41 From: Everett Buntsma Director, Community Services Subject: Tender No. T-17-2012 - Tender for School Crossing Guard Program - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 24-12 of the Director, Community Services regarding Tender T- 17-2012 for the administration, supply and service of the School Crossing Guard Program be received; 2. That Tender No. T-17-2012 submitted by Staffing Services in the total tendered amount of$1,356,000 (HST included) with a net project cost of$1,221,120 be approved for the three year period from September 2012 to June 2015, subject to the annual review and extension to the contract by the Manager, Supply & Services; 3. Further that the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take necessary action to give effect hereto. Executive Summary: The current contract for the administration, supply and service of the school crossing guard program as per Tender T-4-2009 will expire on June 30, 2012. Tender T-17-2012 was issued on Monday, April 23, 2012 and closed on Monday, May 14, 2012. Five companies were invited to participate and an advertisement was placed on the City's website. One bidder responded and submitted a tender. The Community Services Department, Engineering Services Division recommends acceptance of the bid submitted by Staffing Services, the current service provider. The City's purchasing policy requires staff to Report to Council on the results of the tender and financing in order to proceed with this project in a timely manner. Report CS 24-12 June 11, 2012 • Subject: Tender T-17-2012 1 4 2 Tender for School Crossing Guard Program Page 2 Financial Implications: The annual cost for the provision of school crossing guards is provided for in account 2230.2399.0000. In the 2012 Current Budget, costs were estimated for the period of September 2012 to December 2012 for the new contract. Based on the tender received by Staffing Services, the 2012 budget for crossing guards will be exceeded by $8,342, or 2.22% which will be offset by funds available elsewhere at year-end. The 2013 and 2014 Current Budgets will reflect the amounts in the awarded contract. Discussion: The City of Pickering currently contracts the placement of 36 school crossing guard stations, the locations of which are outlined on the attached sketch (Attachment 1). The current contract for the supply and administration for school crossing guard services, T-4-2009, will expire on June 30, 2012. The service provider, Staffing Services,was awarded the contract for the 2009/2010 school year and was extended for the optional second 2010/2011 and third 2011/2012 school years. Tender T-17-2012 was issued on Monday, April 23, 2012, and closed on Monday, May 14, 2012. Five companies were invited to participate, and the tender was advertised on the City's website, with one bidder responding and submitting a tender for this service. The bid submitted by Staffing Services in the total tendered amount of$1,356,000 (HST included) for three years is deemed acceptable. References provided, the proposed contract implementation scheme, the policy/practice regarding absenteeism and vacations and the policy/practice regarding training of both guard and supervisory staff have been checked and are deemed acceptable by the Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works. The Health and Safety Policy, current WSIB Workplace Injury Summary Report, and Certificate of Clearance issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board as submitted by Staffing Services have been reviewed by the Coordinator, Health & Safety. The Certificate of Insurance has been reviewed by the Manager, Finance & Taxation and is deemed acceptable. This tender maintains the current number of crossing guard stations and conditions of service for year one of the.2012/2013 school year (September 2012 to June 2013 ). The term of this contract is to include three school years from September 2012 to June 2015 inclusive. Each progressive school year's service is subject to acceptable health and safety documentation and satisfactory performance evaluation prior to the start of service. The City reserves the right not to extend to the subsequent school year, should the requested documentation set out in Information to Bidders Item 27 not be acceptable and/or the performance evaluation not be acceptable, if in so doing the best interests of the City will be served. In conjunction with staffs review of the contractor's previous work experience, check of references submitted, and review of relevant documentation during the evaluation stage, the tender is deemed acceptable. • CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CS 24-12 June 11, 2012 Subject: Tender T-17-2012 1 Tender for School Crossing Guard Program Page 3 Upon careful examination of the tender and relevant documents received, the Community Services Department, Engineering Services Division recommends the acceptance of the bid submitted by Staffing Services for Tender T-17-2012 in the total tendered amount of$1,356,000 (HST included) for three years and that the total net project cost of$1,221,120 be approved. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Supply & Services Memorandum dated May 14, 2012 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed :y: fd(3/ f Nath-n Eme Everett Buntsm. PD, CMM Coord nator, Traffic Operations Director, Community Services idol u Vera A. Fel'emacher Gillis A. Paterson, CMA C.P.P., CPPO, CPPB, C.P.M., CMM Ill Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Manager, Supply & Services , /, / Darre 'elsky, C.E.T., MM I Ric rd W. H born, P. Eng. Supervisor '/ Div' ion Head, Engineering Services Engineering & Capital Works DS:ds Attachments Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Cou 1 I / l �.e 26/ 20(2 11� Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer CORP0227-07/01 revised • ATTACHMENT# ./ _ TO REPORT#e S • 4--1,2 • I of_,L_ 144 0 ..yz UU' co Z V tt , iu pi o ui �� q : E , . ' e„ . \ \\LI ,,,, I._ '\ , 7,,_,,,e-rjr—jaHr et': 1!?. ' --\::\ .:- . . ...,,i':. ''.. , RC) ' ° CO I-1 Q , A . ._ c , I - .f Ikl V 1 f e, * y .� . • 1 3 1{J" 1L� �r 1 1 U 5 4 D ` . � r, �,�� ,, t 7.",....,, fr p • o 00 ��f i L o ��1hSILE_MCCICA\S--.4;\1®l �� ', 3 0 co N r ul CO 4� V in u� o p____ .: ____, T__„ _,___,_,,, ,.„, ..: .„\v50[1-,91,___. 0 , . _,-, ,orr..__En_ Nie•-7—w,,,n ',:,,, \,. ,, ,!!,L, . . .z.ri r:// , o � • I I.- ,'1 �, '�—am l 9 _... ` l! � s �d l`L R _. .. - N • iii w ��. -D • • -❑ u 0 / U.8 o_ °�I l I / J w ATTACHMENT# TOREPORT# GS W-t2✓ l ; � � 01# RECEIVED 1 45 Memo —,...n.� ! MAY 1.5 2012 CITY OF PICKERING ENGINEERING SERVICES To: Richard Holborn, May 14, 2012 Division Head, Engineering Services From: Vera A Felgemacher Manager, Supply & Services Copy: Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works Subject: Tender No. T-17-2012 Tender for School Crossing Guard Program - File: F-5400-001 Tenders have been received for the above project. Five (5) companies were invited to participate. An advertisement was placed on the City's Website. Three (3) companies downloaded tendering packages, of which one (1) bidder responded and submitted a tender for this project. A copy of the Record of Tenders Opened and Checked used at the public tender opening is attached. Tenders shall be irrevocable for,60 days after the official closing date and time. Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 13.03 (r) provides checking tendered unit prices and extensions unit prices shall govern and extensions will be corrected accordingly, which has been done. A copy of the tender is attached for your review along with the summary of costs. SUMMARY HST Included Bidder Total Tendered Amount After Calculation Check Staffing Services $1,356,000.00 $1,356,000.00 Pursuant to Information to Bidders Item 27, the following will be requested of the low bidder for your review during the evaluation stage of this tender call. Please advise when you wish us to proceed with this task. a) The Company's proposed contact implementation scheme; b) The Company's policy/practice regarding absenteeism and vacations; c) The Company's policy/practice regarding training of both guard and supervisory staff; ATTACHMENT# %L TOREPORT# CS act-12., d) the Company's certification of confirmation of Guard_andilape&sory staff 1 4. 6 successful completion,of a Police Record Check e) The company's certification of confirmation of Guard and supervisory staff successful completion of the Company's Guard training-program f) A copy of the Health and Safety Policy to be used on this project; g) A copy of the current Workplace Injury Summary Report issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (in lieu of the Workplace Injury Summary Report document, a copy of the current CAD 7, NEER, or MAP reports may be submitted); h) A copy of the current Clearance Certificate issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board; - i) The City's certificate of insurance or approved alternative form shall be completed by the bidder's agent, broker or insurer; Please include the following items in your Report to Council: a) if items (a) through (e) noted above are acceptable to the Division Head, Engineering Services • b) if items (f) through (h) noted above, are acceptable to the Co-ordinator, Health & Safety; c) if item (i) noted above is acceptable to the Manager, Finance &Taxation; d) any past work experience with the low bidder Staffing Services including work location; • e) without past work experience, if reference information is acceptable; f) the appropriate account number(s) to which this work.is to be charged; g) the budget amount(s) assigned thereto; h) Treasurer's confirmation of funding; i) related departmental approvals; and j) related comments specific to the project. Please do not disclose any information to enquiries except you can direct them to the City's website for the unofficial bid results as read out at the public tender opening. Bidders will be advised of the outcome in due course. If you require further information, please feel free to contact me or a member of Supply & S rices. • ;r C � VAF/jh// . Attachments May 14, 2012 Page 2 Tender No. T-17-2012 Tender for School Crossing Guard Program Clri, 00 Report To Executive Committee 1 4 7 PICKERING Report Number: CS 27-12 Date: June 11, 2012 From: Everett Buntsma Director, Community Services Subject: Supply & Delivery of one 41 ,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck - Quotation No. Q-13-2012 - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1 . That Report CS 27-12 of the Director, Community Services regarding the supply and delivery of one 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck be received; 2. That Quotation No. Q-13-2012, as submitted by Scarborough Truck Centre Inc. for the supply and delivery of one 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck in the amount of $187,758 (HST extra) be accepted; 3. That the total gross purchase cost of $213,297 and a net purchase cost of • $192,081 be approved; 4. That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to finance the project as follows as provided for in the 2012 Capital Budget; (a) the sum of $190,000 be financed by the issue of debentures through the Regional Municipality of Durham for a period not exceeding five years, at a rate to be determined; (b) that the balance of $2,081 plus issuing costs be funded from property taxes; (c) that the financing and repayment charges in the amount of approximately $41,000 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing in 2013 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid; (d) that the Treasurer be authorized to make any changes, adjustments, and revisions to amounts, terms, conditions or take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; and 5. That the draft by-law attached to this report be enacted; and Report CS 27-12 June 11, 2012 Subject: Supply & Delivery of one 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck 1 4 8 Quotation No. Q-13-2012 Page 2 6. Further that the appropriate City of Pickering Officials be authorized to take necessary action to give effect; Executive Summary: The City of Pickering currently utilizes a fleet comprised of nine 4-ton dump trucks and three 5-ton dump trucks to perform a wide range of road maintenance activities including winter control. As approved in the 2012 Capital Budget this truck will replace Unit #099 — 2002 Freight Liner with 4 ton dump truck with wing and plow. Upon review of all the quotations received, the quotation that meets the City's specification and requirements is being recommended. Financial Implications: 1. Quotation Amount No. Q-13-2012 $187,758.00 HST 13% 24,408.54 Total Gross Quotation Amount $212,166.54 HST — Rebate 11.24% (21,104.00) Total Net Quotation Amount $191,062.54 2. Approved Source of Funds 2012 Roads Capital Budget Item Account Code Source of Funds Budget Required 41,000 LB. GVW 5320.1204.6178 Debt— 5 Years $210,000.00 $190,000.00 Dump Truck Property Taxes 2,081.00 Total Funds $210,000.00 $192,081.00 3. Estimated Project Costing Summary Quotation No. Q-13-2012 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck $187,758.00 Licence Fee & Associated Cost 1,000.00 Total Cost $188,758.00 HST (13%) $24,539.00 Total Gross Purchase Cost $213,297.00 HST Rebate (11.24%), ($21,216.00) Total Net Purchase Cost $192,081.00 Report CS 27-12 June 11, 2012 Subject: Supply & Delivery of one 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck 4 Quotation No. Q-13-2012 Page 3 Project Cost under (over) approved funds by $17,919.00 The Director, Corporate Services and Treasurer has updated the City's 2012 Annual Repayment Limit and certified that this loan and the repayment falls within the City's Annual Repayment Limit for debentures and financial obligations, and therefore, the Ontario Municipal Board approval is not required prior to City Council's authorization. Sustainability Implications: The engine powering this equipment meets the Environmental Protection Agency's Tier 1111 emission standard. This will significantly reduce the amount of harmful emissions created by the operation of the vehicle as well as provide increased fuel economy. This purchase conforms to the environmental and economic lens of sustainability. Discussion: The purchase of a 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck was identified and approved by Council in the 2012 Roads Capital Budget utilizing existing specifications from previous purchases, Supply & Services invited four companies to participate and an advertisement was placed on the City's website. Three bidders responded and have submitted a quotation for this project. The low quotation submitted by Tallman Truck Centre did not provide a vehicle with the required torque specified by the City. This deviation from the specification has been evaluated and it has been determined that a 20% reduction in power would have a detrimental effect on vehicle performance during heavy use such as winter control. Council has supported the decision to meet this overriding requirement previously with the 2006 and 2008 Truck purchases. Based upon these facts as well as a careful examination of all quotations received by Supply & Services, the Community Services Department recommends the acceptance of the bid submitted by Scarborough Truck Inc., in the amount of$187,758 (HST and license extra) and that the total net purchase cost of$192,081 be approved. Attachments: 1. Memo from Supply & Services 2. Being a By-law to authorize the supply and delivery of one 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck in the City of Pickering and the issuance of debentures in the amount of$190,000 Report CS 27-12 June 11, 2012 Subject: Supply & Delivery of one 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck 1 5 0 Quotation No. Q-13-2012 Page 4 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed : eriOviA I ■•• ieirM Grant Smith Everett Bunk a, NPD, CMM Manager Director Opera ions & Fleet Services Community Services Vera A. Fel• -macher Gillis A. Paterson, CMA C.P.P., CPPO', CPPB, C.P.M., CMM III Director, Corporate Services & Manager, Supply & Services Treasurer Caryn Kong, CGA Senior Financial Analyst-Capital & Debt Management GS:nw Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council op , ,/ 1174 2.8 2or T. Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Citga "L r i ATTACHMENT REPORT e-s I 1 51 saniac Memo To: Everett Buntsma April 30, 2012. Director, Community Services From: Vera A. Felgemacher Manager, Supply & Services Copy: Manager, Operations & Fleet Services Subject: Quotation No. Q-13-2012 - Quotation for the Supply & Delivery of One (1) 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck - File: F-5400-001 Quotations have been received for the above project. Four (4) companies were invited to participate and an advertisement was placed on the City's website. Three (3) companies have responded by the official submission date and time. One (1) addendum was issued. Reference: Evaluations of Quotations - Item 2 2.1 Stages of Evaluation The evaluation of quotations will be conducted in the following stages: • Stage I will consist of a review to determine which submissions satisfy all of the mandatory requirements. Those submissions that satisfy the mandatory requirements will proceed to Stage II. • Stage II will consist of a scoring on the basis of the Rated Criteria. Subject to the Terms of Reference and Governing Law, the top-ranked respondent as established under the evaluation will be selected to enter into a contract for the provision of the Deliverables. During Stage I, one (1) quotation was afforded the opportunity to rectify deficiencies and this has been completed. All three (3) quotations can proceed to Stage II. Reference: Appendix A - Deliverables— Item 3: The City may request a demonstration of the equipment being bid upon, including provision for City staff to operate the equipment being bid upon. Such demonstration shall be provided at no charge to the City. Reference: Appendix A - Deliverable — Item 8: Where a minimum is called for, the item shall meet or exceed the capacity, size or performance specified. a) A mark in the "yes" space shall mean compliance with the specification and can be further detailedin the SPECIFY space. b) A mark in the "no" space shall mean a deviation from the speulication and must be further detailed in the SPECIFY space. Deviations will be evaluated and acceptance of these 1 5 9 deviations is within the discretion of the City of Pickering. Where brand names, models or specifications are specified as "no substitution", alternatives will be not considered. Rating Criteria Scoring Lowest Price (Best Price) 5 Highest Price 1 Other pricing received incremental scoring based on its position between "low" and "high" Copies of the quotations are attached for your review along with•the summary. SUMMARY Harmonized Sales Tax Included Bidder Total Amount After Calculation Delivery Rating Check Tallman Truck Centre $211,934.89 $211,934.89 25 weeks 5 Scarborough Truck Centre $212,166.54 $212,166.54 32 weeks 4 Harper Truck Centres Inc. $215,794.97 $215,794.97 26 weeks 3 The quotation submitted by Tallman Truck Centre in the total amount of$211,934.89, HST included is the low quotation, subject to further evaluation and review of specifications. Where the compliant quotation or tender meeting specifications and offering best value to the City is acceptable or where the highest scoring proposal is recommended and the total estimated total purchase price is over$125,000 an award is subject to Council approval. Reference: Purchasing Policy Item 06.12 (c). Please include the following information in your Report to Council: (a) the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged; (b) the budget amount(s) assigned thereto; (c) Treasurer's confirmation of funding; (d) related departmental approvals; and (e) related comments specific to the acquisition. Please do not disclose any information to enquiries. Bidders will be advised of the outcome in du course. If y u require further information, feel free to contact me or Bob. VAF Attachments April 30, 2012 Quotation No. Q-13-2012 Page 2 Supply & Delivery of One (1) 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT WS a?--/02 The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 5 3 By-law No. Being a by-law to authorize the supply and delivery of one 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck in the City of Pickering and the issuance of debentures in the amount of $190,000 Whereas Section 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a lower-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting matters within the spheres of jurisdiction described in that Section; and, Whereas Subsection 401(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a municipality may incur a debt for municipal purposes, whether by borrowing money or in any other way; and, Whereas Subsection 401(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a lower-tier municipality in a regional municipality does not have the power to issue debentures; and, Whereas The Regional Municipality of Durham has the sole authority to issue debentures for the purposes of its lower-tier municipalities including The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the "City"); and, Whereas the Council of the City wishes to proceed with the supply and delivery of one 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck; and, Whereas before the Council of the City authorized the supply and delivery of one 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck, the Council of the City had the Treasurer update the City's Annual Repayment Limit, the Treasurer calculated the estimated annual amount payable in respect of such project and determined that such annual amount would not cause the City to exceed the updated limit and, therefore, Ontario Municipal Board approval was not required prior to City Council's authorization as per Section 401 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, and the regulations made thereunder; And whereas after determining that Ontario Municipal Board approval is not required, the Council of the City approved Report CS 27-12 on the date hereof and awarded Quotation No. Q-13-2012 for the supply and delivery of one 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: By-law No. Page 2 1F4 1. That the City proceed with the supply and delivery of one 41,000 LB. GVW Dump Truck; 2. That the estimated costs of the project in the amount of $192,081 be financed as follows: a) That the sum of $190,000 be financed by the issue of debentures by The Regional Municipality of Durham over a period not to exceed five years; b) That the balance of $2,081 be funded from property taxes; 3. That the funds to repay the principal and interest of the debentures be provided for in the annual Current Budget for the City commencing in 2013 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid. By-law read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 18th day of June, 2012. • • David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk city 4 ti: Report To Executive Committee PICKERING Report Number: CST 17-12 Date: June 11', 2012 1 5 5 1u From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: Development Charges —Annual Indexing Recommendation: 1. That Report CST 17-12 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That effective July 1, 2012 as provided for in Section 16 of By-law 6978/09, the Development Charges referred to in Sections 6 and 11 of that By-law be increased by 3.3 percent; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be given authority to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: The Development Charges Act 1997 and Ontario Regulation 82/98 and By-law 6978/09 provide for an annual adjustment to the City's development charges based on the Non-residential Building Construction Price Index in order to keep development charges revenues current with construction costs.The Non-residential Building Construction Price Index (CPI) for the current indexing year is 3.3%. Adoption of the recommendations of this report will put into effect the higher rates for the period July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013. Financial Implications: Increasing the development charges based on an increase in the CPI will assist in keeping the revenues generated in line with current costs. The residential development charges for single and semi detached units will increase by approximately $323, other residential charges will increase similarly and the commercial/industrial charge will increase by approximately $0.13 per square foot or $1.39 per square metre based on an increase of 3.3%. Discussion: As provided for in the Ontario Reg. 82/98 and in the City's By-law 6978/09, each year the development charges charged by the City for all types of development may be indexed without amending the By-law. Adoption of the recommendations contained in this report will allow that increase to take effect July 1, Report CST 17-12 June 11, 2012 156 Subject: Development Charges- Annual Indexing Page 2 2012 thereby assisting in keeping revenues in line with the costs that development charges fund. Statistics Canada indicates the increase in the construction price statistics for the most recently available annual period ending March 31, 2012 of 3.3 percent for Non- residential Building Construction Price Index (an indicator of our costs of construction) for the Toronto area. The change is reflected in the table attached. At this juncture, the Regional Municipality of Durham (Region) has not finalized the annual indexing of the development charges the City collects on their behalf. The City will continue to use rates prescribed as effective from July 1, 2011 until further notice from the Region. The Education Development Charges will remain unchanged for the current year. Upon Council's approval of the recommendations contained in this report, the development charges brochure will be updated to reflect the approved rates. The updated brochure will be posted on the City's website and made available at various counters throughout the Civic Complex. Attachments: 1. Current and Proposed Development Charges 2012/2013 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Caryn Kong, CGA Gillis A. Paterson, CMA Senior Financial Analyst - Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Capital & Debt Management GAP:ckk Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council 1//41. 8E Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT#_I TO REPORT#,CST/7-1.2 157 City of Pickering Current Residential Development Charges Effective July 1, 2011 Per Dwelling Unit Service Single & Apt. One Apt. Two Other Category Semi Bdrm Bdrm Dwelling Detached & Smaller & Larger Units Growth Studies $88 $35 $47 $63 Fire Protection 262 . 104 141 188 Transportation- Roads & Related 4,561 1,811 2,469 3,273 Operations 281 111 152 202 Stormwater Management 1,379 547 746 990 Parks & Recreation- Parkland Dev & Trails 428 170 231 307 Recreation Facilities 2,271 902 1,229 1,630 Library 521 207 282 374 Total $9,791 $3,887 $5,297 $7,027 Current Non-Residential Development Charges Effective July 1, 2011 Service Per Sq. Foot Per Sq. Metre Category Transportation-Roads & Related $3.00 $32.29 Stormwater Management 0.91 9.77 Total $3.91 $42.06 158 Proposed Residential Development Charges Effective July 1, 2012 Per Dwelling Unit • Service Single & Apt. One Apt. Two Other Category Semi Bedroom Bedroom Dwelling Detached & Smaller & Larger Units Growth Studies $91 $36 $48 $65 Fire Protection 271 107 146 194 Transportation — Roads & Related Operations 4,712 1,871 2,550 3,381 290 114 157 209 Stormwater Management 1,424 565 771 1,023 Parks & Recreation- Parkland Dev & Trails 442 176 239 317 • Recreation Facilities 2,346 932 1,270 1,684 Library 538 214 291 386 Total $10,114 $4,015 $5,472 $7,259 $ Increase Residential $323 $128 $175 $232 Proposed Non-Residential Development Charges Effective July 1, 2012 Service Per Sq. Foot Per Sq. Metre Category Transportation-Roads & Related $3.10 $33.36 Stormwater Management 0.94 10.09 Total. $4.04 $43.45 $ Increase Non-Residential $0.13 $1.39 159 cit,, °� z Report To Executive Committee PICKERING Report Number: CST 19-12 Date: June 11, 2012 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: 2012/2013 Property and Liability Insurance Renewal Recommendation: 1. That Report CST 19-12 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the City of Pickering renew its property, liability and other insurance policies through the Frank Cowan Company for the period July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 in the amount of $790,690.92 (includes applicable taxes) and inclusive on terms and conditions acceptable to the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer; 3. That L.V. Walker & Associates be confirmed as the City's Adjuster of Record for property, liability and other insurance and related matters; 4. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, as part of the Risk Management Program, be authorized to continue the Deductible Program, including entering into the attached Claims Handling Agreement, through the Insurance Adjuster L.V. Walker & Associates, and the Frank Cowan Company and further, that the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer or the Manager, Finance & Taxation be authorized to settle any claims including any adjusting and legal fees where it is in the City's interest to do so; 5. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to purchase additional insurance, make changes to deductibles and existing coverages, and alter terms and conditions as becomes desirable or necessary in order to limit potential liability exposure and to protect the assets of the City and it's elected officials and staff; and, 6. That the appropriate officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. • ,�R port CST 19-12 June 11, 2012 I. b Subject: 2012/2013 Property and Liability Insurance Renewal Page 2 Executive Summary: The City's insurance program continues to operate successfully and the above Recommendations provide for a renewal of the policies basically on the same or improved terms and conditions as in past years, which also provides coverage for the Library, its Board and its employees. Financial Implications: The insurance premium has been provided for in the approved 2012 budget and the renewal premium cost is within the 2012 budgeted amount. Discussion: Each year on July 1, the City's general liability and property insurance policies come up for renewal. As approved by Council at the time of the 1998 renewal, the Treasurer undertook an extensive review of all aspects of the City's insurance program. The City of Pickering embarked on a Risk Management Program, the initial phase of which involved negotiating renewing premiums with the City's broker. The result of the negotiations was a decrease of approximately $75,000 or 20 percent, in the premiums from that of the prior year. The savings were transferred to the Self Insurance Reserve. In our opinion, this program has served the city well, and today there is almost $1 million in this reserve. Recommendation 4 provides the Treasurer with the authority to continue to review and adjust insurance coverages where appropriate during the year to reflect business requirements and current market and business environment conditions. Every year, staff review the proposed insurance policy terms and conditions to ensure that the City is adequately protected. The City's municipal liability limit is $25.0 million which is at an adequate level based on the City's current population and liability exposure. For comparison purposes, the City of Windsor with a population of approximately 200,000 has liability coverage of $50.0 million and Toronto with a population of 2.5 million has a liability limit of $100.0 million. The City's liability policy provides coverage for bodily injury, property damage, personal injury and is based on a deductible of $100,000. Bodily injury claims include and are not limited to: sickness, disease, shock, mental anguish assault and battery sustained during the policy period by any person. With the current deductible limit at $100,000, the insurance renewal is $790,690 (including applicable taxes) that is within the budget. Future favourable premium renewals will be contingent upon the City's claim history or claims experience. To ensure positive future premium renewals, the 2012 budget included $200,000 for sidewalk rehabilitation funded 100% from Federal Gas Tax (FGT). It is anticipated that the FGT funding will help reduce the number of sidewalk "slip and fall" claims. The Claims Handling Agreement is mainly making formal a working arrangement that the City has had in place with the Adjuster and Cowan's for many years. Through this formal arrangement the City should realize cost savings which would be reflected in lower premium increase in future years. Report CST 19-12 June 11, 2012 Subject: 2012/2013 Property and Liability Insurance Renewal Page 3 Insurance Market and Trends Traditionally, the market for municipal insurance providers has been a limited one. Municipal operations pose a unique challenge to insurers arising out of the wide array of exposures which fall within the scope of coverage under one policy. The availability of markets willing to insure municipalities has been further complicated by legislative changes and by broader court decisions. The Frank Cowan Company is one of Canada's largest providers of insurance and risk management solutions for public entities. This company has been in business for over 80 years and is a financially strong company and is associated with the Guarantee Company of North America. The current liability and property insurance market remains steady for most standard lines of insurance business with municipal insurance.experiencing an above average increase. The Court awarded damages are getting larger, especially for bodily injury claims. These awards are primarily driven by the costs of providing future care for injured persons. Municipal property liability premiums continue to increase as a result of the legal provision of the joint and several liability application leveraged with large court awards and with the municipality as being seen as having "deep pockets". The joint and several provisions of the Negligence Act, indicate, "Where damages have been caused or contributed to by the fault or neglect of two or more persons ... and, where two or more persons are found at fault or negligent, they are jointly and severally liable to the person suffering the loss or damage ..." Also known as the 1°/0 rule, these provisions may oblige a defendant, which is only 1% at fault, to pay the plaintiff's entire judgment particularly in cases where the other defendants are financially unable to do so. In other words, the defendant who is 99% at fault does not have the financial strength or assets to pay the claim. Therefore, the municipality, who is viewed as having "deep pockets", pays the remainder of the claim. Individual claims are becoming more complex, resulting in more time to manage the claim, more detailed investigation and more experts and legal costs involved in defending the claim. Even if the City is not liable, there are always costs in defending the claim. Basic risk management states that you should diversify your risk. Many insurance companies have customers throughout the Province or Canada to diversify the risk associated with a local catastrophic event. With the City of Pickering being a direct customer of the Frank Cowan Company (who has customers throughout the Province and beyond), the geographical risk diversification is achieved and maintained. Service to our Residents Regrettably, insurance claims or incidents do occur. A key strategic advantage of the City's insurance and risk management program is that every claim is processed with a customer service attitude. After a claim or incident is received, City staff quickly contact R9�ort CST 19-12 June 11, 2012 Subject: 2012/2013 Property and Liability Insurance Renewal Page 4 (within 24 hours) the claimant, to advise them that the City has received the claim and to assure them that the claim is being investigated by the City's Insurance Adjuster. The City's Insurance Adjuster has many years of local municipal insurance experience, which the City uses as an asset to investigate and settle claims. The City's Insurance Adjuster is familiar with the City and its municipal infrastructure and this experience has assisted in reducing claims cost due to his knowledge and/or his familiarity with the City, its policies and procedures. The Insurance Adjuster's service standard is to make contact with the claimant within two business days. Sometimes, the claimants may not completely agree with the outcome and City staff may review the claim and/or intervene to work towards a solution. The strategic advantage of the "local service delivery model" is that claims are handled quickly, professionally and with a customer service perspective. In addition, the current "local" service delivery model allows City staff "hands on" participation in the claims process to better serve claimants who, in the majority of situations, are City residents. Attachments: 1. Program Summary of Insurance Coverage 2. Frank Cowan — Claim Handling Agreement Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski Gillis A. Paterson, CMA Manager, Finance & Taxation Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Cit Council /,1j / Vt 2 ZOI Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT#_d__TO REPORT# /1-i 2 163 6) Cowan Frank Cowan Company 2012 MUNICIPAL INSURANCE PROGRAM City eit, q CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING Prepared by: Mr. Viano Ciaglia,C.I.P., C.R.M. Regional Manager Frank Cowan Company Limited 75 Main Street North Princeton,ON NOJ 1V0 This is a summary. Nothing herein alters the terms,conditions and viano.ciaglia @frankcowan.com exclusions contained in the printed insurance contract(s). 1-800-265-4000 REF: 60275/sd April 19,2012 T/519-458-4331 F/519-458-4366 164 About Frank Cowan Company Leader in Public Entity Insurance Frank Cowan Company has grown to become one of Canada's leading providers of Insurance and Risk Management solutions for public entities. For over 80 years Frank Cowan Company has been a pioneer in the development and implementation of innovative insurance programs for the Municipal,Health Care,Education and Social Services sectors. Frank Cowan Company is affiliated with Cowan Insurance Group, The Guarantee Company of North America and Millennium CreditRisk Management through common ownership under Princeton Holdings Limited. Cowan Insurance Group provides insurance and risk management products and services to businesses, organizations, and individuals. Cowan Insurance Group is one of the largest privately owned business and personal insurance brokerage operations in Canada, and provides retirement and group benefits assistance to employers, as well as financial advice on life insurance, disability management, critical illness and long term care. The Guarantee Company of North America specializes in commercial and contract surety, fidelity, directors' and officers' liability and personal lines insurance including it's high value Guarantee Gold coverage. Millennium CreditRisk Management specializes in trade credit and political risk insurance. Outstanding Service We are more than just an insurance provider. We are a trusted partner in providing insurance and risk management services. We work with our clients and their affiliated associations to develop individualized risk management and claims management programs, advise on procedural or regulatory change as well as an array of other services. Our mandate is clear...help our clients reduce risk. Clients also benefit from our affiliations with lawyers, adjusters and others that specialize in the public sector. The combination of our service network and internal expertise allow us to continually develop innovative, cost-effective solutions and services tailored to the risks of individual clients. Financial Stability Frank Cowan Company, as an Underwriting Agent,represents a select group of financially strong Canadian based insurers that have made a long-term commitment to public sector risk. Our business model creates a very stable market for your insurance requirements, and gives our customers the comfort of knowing that they will always be protected by long-term, high-quality continuous service. Frank Cowan Company -2- 165 Cowan Service Solutions More Than Just Insurance Cowan offers a full range of services to assist in the management and reduction of risk, which is equally vital to our clients. Risk Management, Claims Management and our other value-added services were initiated by Cowan and have evolved throughout our history. Most often we can provide the services listed below at no additional cost to the client. Liability Hazard Assessment Pao Our Municipal clients are involved in a wide range of diverse activities to serve the public. These lead to various potential public liability situations. We work with our clients to provide specific hazard identification and analysis of these exposures. Building Valuations tb. We conduct periodic detailed inspections of property and buildings with formal reports, replacement cost valuations for insurance purposes, photographic inventory with recommendations to correct potential hazards. Seminars&Staff Training tbe We deliver a wide range of presentations to our Municipal clients on an ongoing basis that provide continuous education for our clients. Risk Audits t1. We help our clients audit systems and processes to reduce potential losses within their operations and specifically focus on documentation, reporting and consistency with accepted standards and practices. Contractual Review to Our experience contributes insight on the suitability and effectiveness of liability transfers and appropriate insurance and indemnity clauses within your various contracts. Publications,Bulletins& Because constant two-way communication is important, Information Packages our website is available on a 24 hour basis for access to information on our Services, Publications and programs. Anyone in your organization can visit us at www.frankcowan.com to keep informed of common issues and solutions. Claims Management to We handle your claim fairly and efficiently. Claims that are made against you are handled with the consistent strategy of defending or discouraging those claims that are without merit, or reaching a reasonable settlement on claims that do merit payment. Detailed claims progress reports are produced and can be organized by type of loss or department to suit your needs. Frank Cowan Company -3 - 166 MARKETPLACE CONDITIONS The Canadian Property& Casualty Insurance marketplace continues to witness consolidation yet remains one of the most saturated insurance markets in the world, with over 200 players. However, amongst the majority of the insurers operating in Canada, specialization continues to be the trend. Only a limited number of insurers are willing to risk their capital on high liability exposure classes such as Municipal, Healthcare, Education and Social Services sectors. While the last few years have brought some stability for the general Property & Casualty market, specialty classes continue to present unique Underwriting and Claims Management challenges. The Public Entity sector continues to experience significant losses. Some of these losses have been driven by landmark cases, but overall, frequency and severity of claims have increased dramatically. As well, the overall cost of claims, which takes into account escalating court awards, claims administration expenses and the ever-increasing replacement costs of assets, has continued to rise. Insurers and Reinsurers are extremely cautious about public entity liability exposures due in part to the complexity of services provided by public sector organizations. A number of insurers have either imposed coverage restrictions or withdrawn from the public entity market entirely. Frank Cowan Company, a specialist in public entity insurance, continues to receive the support and capacity of our insurers. We continue to provide long-term stability for the insurance and risk management needs of our public entity clientele. Our policies and services continue to evolve in response to the exposures faced by our clients. We are confident that our product, service and pricing will reflect our continued commitment to this sector. Frank Cowan Company -4- 167 COMPREHENSIVE INSURANCE PROGRAM 2012 - 2013 Frank Cowan Company -5- 1 6 8 CHANGES TO YOUR INSURANCE PROGRAM Please be advised of the following changes to your insurance program that now apply: • PROPERTY POLICY Property values have been increased in order to reflect inflationary trends. • EQUIPMENT BREAKDOWN POLICY Electronic Equipment coverage is now included under the definition of objects insured. Frank Cowan Company -6- PROGRAM SUMMARY 1 6 9 SUMMARY OF COVERAGES LIMITS/AMOUNTS PART A—CASUALTY Municipal Liability Limit of Protection per occurrence $ 25,000,000. (No Annual Aggregate Limit) Third Party Claims Deductible including expenses $ 100,000. Sewer Backup per Claimant Deductible including expenses $ 100,000. Wrongful Dismissal(legal expense)Limit per claim $ 250,000. Annual Aggregate Limit $ 250,000. Deductible $ 5,000. Voluntary Compensation Included Municipal Marina Liability Included Malpractice Liability Included Errors and Omissions(Claims Made Form) Limit of Protection per claim $ 25,000,000. (No Annual Aggregate Limit) Deductible including expenses $ 100,000. Non-Owned Automobile Limit of Protection per occurrence $ 25,000,000. (No Annual Aggregate Limit) Legal Liability for Non-Owned Vehicles(S.E.F.No. 94) Third Party Liability Deductible $ 10,000. All Perils Physical Damage Limit $ 500,000. Deductible $ 500. Environmental Liability(Claims Made Form) Liability of Protection per claim $ 1,000,000. Annual Aggregate Limit $ 2,000,000. Self-Insured Retention $ 100,000. Frank Cowan Company -7- 17 0 PROGRAM SUMMARY SUMMARY OF COVERAGES LIMITS/AMOUNTS Comprehensive Crime Commercial Blanket Bond $ 2,000,000. Money Orders and Counterfeit Paper Currency Included Depositors'Forgery Included Audit Expense $ 100,000. Money and Securities-Blanket any Location $ 100,000. Excess on Securities $ 100,000. Computer Fraud or Funds Transfer Fraud $ 200,000. Councillors' Accident One City Mayor/Regional Councillor,Three Regional Councillors(Durham)/ City Councillor and Three City Councillors and Nine Library Board Members Accidental Death&Dismemberment $ 100,000. (No Annual Aggregate Limit and No Deductible) Weekly Income—Total Disability $ 500. Weekly Income—Partial Disability $ 250. Twenty-Four Hour a Day Coverage applies. Municipal Conflict of Interest Percentage of Legal Fees and Expenses 100% Maximum Limit of Reimbursement per claim $ 100,000. (No Annual Aggregate Limit) Legal Expense Percentage of Legal Fees and Expenses 100% Maximum Limit of Reimbursement per claim $ 100,000. Annual Aggregate Limit $ 250,000. Frank Cowan Company -8- PROGRAM SUMMARY 1 7 1 SUMMARY OF COVERAGES LIMITS/AMOUNTS PART B—PROPERTY Property Insurance(including Data Processing Insurance) Total Sum Insured* $ 181,444,900. Valuable Papers $ 500,000. Accounts Receivable(other than Data Processing) $ 500,000. Extra Expense(other than Data Processing) $ 1,000,000. Business Interruption Rent or Rental Value Form $ 500,000. Gross Revenue Form $ 2,584,500. Checkroom Liability $ 5,000. Data Processing System and Equipment $ 1,440,800. Media $ 47,000. Extra Expense $ 50,000. Fine Arts Form $ 2,000. Exhibition Form As Per Lists Provided Deductible $ 10,000 Exceptions: -Checkroom Liability $ 2,500. -Fire Training Trailer $ 2,500. -Peril of Flood $ 25,000. -Peril of Earthquake 3%or Minimum $ 100,000. -Fine Arts Form and Exhibition Form $ 2,500. *Note: Please refer to the insurance contract for an itemized list of assets containing specific limits of insurance or that are excluded from the policy. Frank Cowan Company -9- 1 7 2 PROGRAM SUMMARY SUMMARY OF COVERAGES LIMITS/AMOUNTS Equipment Breakdown Limit per Accident—Comprehensive: -Steam Engine At Greenwood Museum,2365 6th Concession,Greenwood,ON $ 10,000. -All Other Locations $ 50,000,000. Extra Expense $ 500,000. Spoilage—Goods under Refrigeration $ 50,000. Business Interruption—Loss of Profits(Gross Revenue) -All Buildings&Facilities,Greenwood Museum,Pickering,Ontario $ 94,500. -Don Beer Arena,940 Dillingham Road,Pickering,Ontario $ 600,000. -Dunbarton Indoor Pool,655 Sheppard Ave.E.,Pickering,Ontario $ 100,000. -Pickering Recreation Complex, 1867 Valley Farm Road,Pickering,Ontario $ 1,790,000. Expediting Expenses Included By-Law Cover Included Errors and Omissions $ 100,000. Hazardous Substance(including PCB Contamination) $ 500,000. Ammonia Contamination $ 500,000. Water Damage $ 500,000. Professional Fees $ 500,000. Data Restoration $ 25,000. Denial of Access 2 Weeks Deductible $ 10,000. Frank Cowan Company - 10- PROGRAM SUMMARY 1 7 3 SUMMARY OF COVERAGES LIMITS/AMOUNTS PART C-AUTOMOBILE Automobile Fleet Liability Limit $ 25,000,000. Deductibles No Physical Damage applies to 1951 Antique Pumper(Parades) Section 3 (Third Party Liability) $ 10,000. Section 6(Direct Compensation—Property Damage) $ 10,000. All Perils $ 10,000. Garage Automobile Third Party Liability Limit $ 3,000,000. Customer Vehicles Collision Limit $ 200,000. Deductible $ 500. Specified Perils Limit $ 300,000. Deductible $ 500. Frank Cowan Company - 11 - • 1 7 4 Revised August 2007 ATTACHMENT#_ TO REPORT Csf /q-/ D. Sarluis 6k) Cowan Frank Cowan Company Claim Handling Agreement This agreement is by and between Frank Cowan Company Limited ("Cowan") and (the "Insured") PURPOSE: ➢ To ensure all claims are handled effectively and appropriately. ➢ To reduce the cost of claims handling ➢ To ensure,all arms-length expenses incurred on internally handled claims matters are tracked accurately and completely. ➢ To provide an early warning system for claims that may exceed the policy deductible. BACKGROUND: Whereas reporting conditions and requirements are present in and form part of the policies of insurance issued to the Insured by Cowan; and whereas the policy wordings authorize Cowan to handle all claims; and whereas the Insured desires to continue handling certain claims internally; and whereas Cowan authorizes the Insured to handle certain claims internally subject to the terms of this agreement; and whereas this agreement is intended to remain in force until all claims handled by the Insured and covered by the policies of insurance issued by Cowan are resolved, therefore, the Insured agrees to the following terms and conditions. REPORTING REQUIREMENT: If at any time during the handling of a claim it becomes apparent that the claim: ➢ has reached or is expected to reach a total incurred value in excess of 75% of the policy deductible or, • Frank Cowan Company Limited 175 ➢ is the type of claim set out below, or ➢ triggers coverage under the Errors and Omissions policy, The Insured shall immediately report the claim, despite the insured not assessing any liability, to Cowan who may elect to assume handling of the claim. Type of Claim That Must Be Reported Immediately: ➢ Fatalities ➢ Brain damage resulting in mental or physical impairment ➢ Injuries resulting in total or partial paralysis ➢ Third degree burns (10% of body) or second degree burns (30% of body) ➢ Impairment of vision or hearing (50% or more) ➢ Massive internal injuries affecting body organ(s) ➢ Multiple fractures involving more than one member or significant shortening of limbs ➢ Fracture of both heel bones ➢ Total disability of more than 1 year regardless of injury ➢ Multiple cases of drug or vaccine reaction ➢ Class action suits ➢ Pollution, environmental or contamination If at any time a claim is not reported to Cowan that otherwise should have been as per the above criteria, Cowan reserves the right to deny coverage. TRACKING: The Insured must maintain a claims reporting and tracking system on which all claims will be entered. The system must be acceptable to Cowan. An up to date claims report must be forwarded to Cowan every six (6) months or as requested by Cowan. EXPENSES: Arms-length expenses will not include salaries for Insured personnel, administrative and overhead expenses. Arms—length expenses will include the following paid to third party vendors: ➢ Defence legal ➢ Adjusting ➢ Investigation ➢ Experts Page 2 of 3 Claim Handling Agreement 1 7 6 Frank Cowan Company Limited AUDIT: The Frank Cowan Company Limited will have the right to audit claims handled by the Insured having provided reasonable notice. The results of all audits will be shared with the Insured. The audit will address proper documentation to support coverage, liability and quantum, claim handling quality, reserve timeliness, settlement level appropriateness, quality of defense and adherence to this agreement. TERMINATION: If at anytime the terms of this agreement are not being met, Cowan reserves the right to terminate this agreement immediately and assume carriage of all or some of the insured's claims at the sole discretion of Cowan. We the undersigned have the authority to execute this agreement. Dated at the day of , 200_ (The Insured): Name and Title of Authorized Representative Signature of Authorized Representative Frank Cowan Company Limited Name and Title of Authorized Representative Signature of Authorized Representative Page 3 of 3 Claim Handling Agreement